Illinois State University Council for Teacher Education ... · E. Palmer gave a Power Point...

Illinois State University

Council for Teacher Education

Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

DeGarmo Hall, Room 551

Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, T. Davis, J. Derden, T. Dunlap, S. French, D. Garrahy, J.

Gorski, L. Haling, S. Hardin, P. Hash, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry,

J. Regnier, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, S. Williams, M. Winsor

Absent: J. Dohrman, S. Dustin, S. Jones-Bock, K. Mountjoy, L. Sutton, N. Uphold, D. Wilson. C. Zimmerman

Guests: D. Barroqueiro, T. Hinkel, H. Goldsmith, D. Kilgore, M. Monts, M. Parker, A. Parrot, A. Raver, L.

Randles, L. Thetard, J. Watson, J. Webster

I. Call to Order by Chair: Chair P. Schoon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

In lieu of roll call, committee members introduced themselves.

II. CTE Member Introductions: Committee members introduced themselves, indicating their

department/school. D. Garrahy thanked the student representative’s for being members of CTE.

III. Nomination for Vice Chair: D. Garrahy nominated S. Parry.

Nomination was approved unanimously.

IV. Nominations for Secretary: D. Garrahy indicated that the secretary takes notes, along with

S. Conner and is automatically on the CTE Executive Board. The Executive Board meets

the second and fourth Tuesday of each month.

There were no nominations for Secretary, so it was tabled.

V. Approval of Minutes from May 2, 2017: Motion to approve the minutes from May 2, 2017:

J. Rosenthal

Second: S. Otto

Minutes were unanimously approved.

VI. Subcommittee Reports: Duties/Responsibilities/Assignments

D. Garrahy distributed hand-outs indicating sub-committee assignments and descriptions for

CTE members. The Vision Committee is short an undergraduate student. The rooms for the

sub-committees have been reserved and they meet the second and fourth Tuesday of each

month. If unsure of the room number, please contact D. Garrahy, S. Conner, or J. Carlton.

Please do not change the designation of the sub-committee meetings. Each committee met to

elect a chair. D. Garrahy reminded all that each chair also serves on the CTE Executive

Board. S. French was moved to the University Curriculum Committee as bylaws require UCC

to have a Milner representative. T. Davis was moved to University Liaison and Faculty Interest

Committee.

Chairs were elected as follows:

A. Curriculum: Chair: S. Parry

B. Student Interests: Chair: TBD - tabled as not all members present

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests: Chair: TBD – tabled as not all members

present

D. Vision: Chair: D. Garrahy

E. University Teacher Education Assessment: Chair: C. Borders

P. Schoon nominated T. Davis as CTE Secretary. P. Schoon thanked T. Davis.

VII. Information Items: A. ISBE Updates: T. Hinkel distributed a hand-out on Illinois State Board of Education

Updates. T. Hinkel stated there is a teacher shortage mostly in rural and high needs areas.

Partnership for Educator Preparation (PEP) is the new annual reporting system for initial

licensure programs. The data will provide experience in the field, what district they are in,

and what university they went to. The data will most likely be completed by people on

campus (PERPA, CELP office). Historically, we have only entered student teachers. P.

Schoon added that this is no longer just program completers. It will include all students

within the Educator Licensure Information System (ELIS) and will be repeated every year.

M. Noraian asked if the annual report will still be required.

T. Hinkel responded that for undergraduate programs it will not be required.

T. Hinkel indicated he spent approximately eight hours putting information into ELIS for 45

students. We have approximately 2000. ISBE will fill out survey for any completers and

the feedback will be distributed to the programs.

In January, ISBE simplified substitution licensure process. Short-Term Authorization is

out for public comment. If they already have license, have nine credit hours in that content

area and pass the content test, they can be licensed to teach that content. Grade range

changes for certain endorsements – PK-12 (Foreign Language, Library, Reading, ESL,

Bilingual, Gifted and Technology Specialist).

S. Parry asked if a teacher had a degree in Secondary English Education, could they get an

endorsement in Spanish and teach ECE/ELED?

T. Hinkel responded that no, but ELED/ECE degree could add Spanish endorsement.

M. Noraian asked if Middle Level Endorsement could be added.

J. Rosenthal added the credit hour range was 18, and now it is 24 based on a new law. It

was proposed to the state for Middle Level last year, and rejected by ISBE.

Testing Changes: To meet the Basic Skills requirement, a teacher candidate can use

previous basic skills test, TAP, ACT or SAT and the tests are valid indefinitely. Writing

and Composite scores can come from separate tests. Super Scoring is now possible.

Guidance document for Super Scoring can be found on the TEC website.

Content tests no longer expire. New tests are coming for several areas and some require

multiple sections. Study guides are available through testing website.

Additional ISBE Updates:

Secondary programs are moving toward 9-12 licensure - must submit new programs in

the coming years. For 6-12 licenses, they are proposing 9-12 licenses. J. Rosenthal

added they would be changing programs and would no longer be licensed in the 6-12

program.

February 1, 2018 – new middle grades (5-8) becomes official. Some programs have

been expanded from secondary to 6-12: Agriculture, Business, Computer, FCS, Health

and Technology.

Out of state and international student teaching now allowed (previously had waiver).

Principal candidate no longer requires a PEL to be accepted into a prep program.

Chief School Business Officer can now be added to Public Administration Degree.

ISBE – Communications

Superintendents message:

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Illinois-State-Board-of-Education-Superintendents-

Weekly-Message.aspx?Year-2017

This is good for K-12 schools and what they are doing.

Preparation Points:

Email [email protected] to be added to the distribution.

Preparation Points comes out every two months.

Email [email protected] to be added to the distribution list.

Proposed Rules:

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Proposed-Rules-and-Amendments.aspx

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Illinois-State-Board-of-Education-Superintendents-Weekly-Message.aspx?Year-2017

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Illinois-State-Board-of-Education-Superintendents-Weekly-Message.aspx?Year-2017

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Proposed-Rules-and-Amendments.aspx

ISBE General Information

o Updated ISBE website:

www.isbe.net

o Current ISBE Licensure Structure:

https://www.isbe.net/Documents/endsmt_struct.pdf

o Middle Grades Guide:

https://www.isbe.net/Documents/future-of-Illinois-middle-grades.pdf

o Educator Preparation website (Program info website):

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Educator-Preparation-Providers-and-Stakeholders.aspx

B. Teacher Education Faculty CBCs for our Lab Schools: The University Minors Policy

goes into effect in January. Teacher Education faculty going into the lab schools must

complete a Criminal Background Check. Please share this information with your teacher

education colleagues in your programs. Representatives on CTE were urged to spread the

word. The CBC only has to be completed once as a faculty member. D. Garrahy invited

John Goodman to speak with the CTE in October, to explain the University’s new policy.

If you are selected as the Chair of one of our sub-committees, you become a member of the

CTE Executive Board. If there is a student appeal, the Executive Board becomes TERB

(Teacher Education Review Board). There is one student appeal

awaiting the TERB.

The Cecilia J. Lauby Teacher Education Center has revised our website to include

information for: Cooperating Teachers, University Supervisors, Faculty, and school

partners.

VIII. Discussion Items: None

IX. Action Items: None

X. Announcements and Last Comments:

A. Vice-Chair: S. Parry thanked T. Davis for agreeing to serve as Secretary.

B. Members: J. Rosenthal indicated that the Trump administration rescinded DACA

(Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). There was a rally on campus at noon. The

President supports our international and undocumented students and scholars.

Hopefully, Congress does their job and supports them, as well.

http://www.isbe.net/

https://www.isbe.net/Documents/endsmt_struct.pdf

https://www.isbe.net/Documents/future-of-Illinois-middle-grades.pdf

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Educator-Preparation-Providers-and-Stakeholders.aspx

XI. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: J. Rosenthal

Second: S. Parry

Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.



Tuesday, September 19th, 2017 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, J. Dohrmann, S. French, D. Garrahy,

J. Gorski, L. Haling, S. Hardin, P. Hash, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto,

S. Parry, J. Regnier, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: S. Arnett-Hartwick, T. Dunlap, S. Hardin, K. Mountjoy, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, N. Uphold

Guests: H. Goldsmith, T. Hinkel, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, E. Palmer, A. Parrot, C. Rutherford, L. Thetard

I. Call to Order by Chair:

Chair P. Schoon called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

Roll call of members was conducted by recorder, T. Davis.

II. Subcommittee Reports

A. Curriculum Committee: S. Parry reported the committee appointed S. Arnett-Hartwick as

the recording secretary.

B. Student Interests: M. Noraian reported the committee brought the new student members

up to date concerning ongoing initiatives. They will be moving forward with the design of the

new logo.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests: S. Jones-Bock reported the by-laws were

updated, voted by CTE last March, and forwarded to the Academic Senate. They were

requesting for APs and NTTs with responsibility for teacher education programs to be able to sit

on CTE.

D. Garrahy added that she, S. Jones-Bock, and P. Schoon will be meeting with S. Kalter,

Academic Senate Chair, to see if there are questions to expedite the changes. They are grateful

for the collaboration.

D. UTE Assessment: C. Borders reported the committee met on the 26th and worked on the

edDisposition documents based upon the summer sessions of inter-rater reliability. C. Borders

will be attending the CAEP conference next week and they will have a working meeting.

E. Vision: D. Garrahy reported the committee met last week and updated new and continuous

members regarding the status of moving to a National Criminal Background Check (NCBC).

Currently, the CBC is an annual requirement for Teacher Education at ISU. The NCBC will be

a one- time CBC that would be completed prior to the teacher candidate beginning their first

pre-student teaching clinical experience. The NCBC would be a more detailed report and 100%

online. This will hopefully be brought to the CTE by the end of the semester. D. Garrahy will

be attending the CAEP conference next week, therefore, the Vision committee will not be

meeting.

III. Information Items

1. CTE Representatives and constituents: D. Garrahy distributed Lauby Center

information cards. Members of the TEC staff composed the card and outlines what the

Lauby Center does for 3600 teacher candidates. The cards were also passed out at Festival

ISU.

D. Garrahy distributed the department contacts for the teacher education programs

across campus. D. Garrahy is requesting the CTE members to reach out to their

constituents for agenda items and to share information with their colleges. The CTE minutes

are posted on SharePoint and the CTE website; please also share with your colleagues.

D. Garrahy mentioned that when she served as the Dean’s Representative for CAST, she

would take approved minutes and send to teacher education constituents and administrators in

CAST.

CTE Executive Board consists of:

C. Borders

T. Davis

D. Garrahy

S. Jones-Bock

M. Noraian

S. Parry

J. Rosenthal

P. Schoon

The Executive Board meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month to develop the CTE

agenda. D. Garrahy added the Student Interests Committee gave her an overview of what the

committee will be working on and they are doing a phenomenal job.

2. edTPA Update: E. Palmer gave a Power Point presentation on edTPA Updates for fall 2017.

There were 823 teacher candidates that completed edTPA with a 97% initial pass rate. There

were 20 retakes. The final pass rate for ISU was 99.4%. Task scale is 1-5 with 5 rarely seen.

We like our teacher candidates to receive a 3 or higher. There are 15 rubrics, so if a teacher

candidate received a 3 on each of the rubrics the cut score would be 45 - 45 or higher is a strong

score.

E. Palmer explained the rubric meanings to the CTE. As a University, rubrics 10 and 13 are the

weakest areas. Rubric 6 and 12 are the strongest areas. Rubric 6 is classroom environment and

always has high scoring. Rubric 10 is performance analysis of teaching and reflection on videos.

Rubric 13 is feedback and how that will help further their learning. Our proficiency rates on

individual rubrics show that rubrics 9, 10, and 13 fall below the 80% goal.

The cut score moves to 37 for 2017-2018. Predictions based upon the current trends of 2016-

2017 show that ISU should have a 96% pass rate in 2017-2018, a 91% pass rate in 2018-2019,

and an 84% pass rate in 2019-2020. By looking at our current data, the university is exploring

ways to help programs achieve the 80% proficiency rates in the rubrics through backwards

mapping. Programs demonstrating lower proficiency rates will be receiving additional support.

C. Zimmerman asked why the cut scores are increasing.

E. Palmer responded that Stanford conducted a 4-year pilot study of the edTPA and offered a

range of 35-42 as “passing” scores. The State of Illinois set a final score of 41. The state asked

the teacher education institutions if they wanted the passing score of 41 to be implemented

immediately or if the institutions would prefer to have the scores scaffold up over a period of

time. The institutions elected to have the scores increase over time. By the 2020 pass score of

41, ISU will have been involved in edTPA for 10 years total, 3 years of pilot implementation and

7 years of full implementation.

D. Garrahy added the edTPA Prep Course will be offered in winter session December 16 –

January 16. Twenty-five students will be the maximum class size and E. Palmer is the instructor.

D. Garrahy thanked P. Schoon for supporting the course.

3. Disposition Concerns: D. Garrahy stated that there have been some issues with dispositions.

The process is meant to be a way to document concerns about teacher education candidates long

before they enter student teaching. Based upon the issues, we need to revisit the who, what,

when, where, and why dispositions are created. Dr. Wendy Smith, Legal Counsel, will be

attending a future CTE meeting to lead a discussion on the process. D. Garrahy is hopeful that a

similar session will be scheduled with all Program Coordinators or their representative.

Examples of issues:

Forms submitted with incomplete information

Disposition concerns marked “resolvable,” resolved and the student does not know how

it was resolved

Some stakeholders, who should be writing a disposition concern, do not want to get

students into trouble by writing a disposition. Others may not wish to be the “bad”

person, so the documentation of the concern is not submitted.

Submission of a disposition concerns allows the concerns to be documented and remediated. If it

is not documented, the pattern of behavior continues. Disposition Concerns should be used as

learning opportunities.

S. Otto commented that sometimes we as faculty work in isolation and may not know that there

is a pattern developing. If there are any questions, contact D. Garrahy in the Lauby Center for

advice. D. Garrahy shared that only the Program Coordinator and Troy Hinkel, Associate

Director in the Office of Clinical Experiences and Licensure Processes, know the number of

dispositions a candidate has earned. This information is confidential. If ever in doubt, write the

disposition for documentation purposes.

IV. Action Items:

V. Announcements and Last Comments:

A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members:

√ D. Garrahy expressed sympathy to the Physical Education Teacher Education

program on the tragic automobile accident that took the life of Rachel Dean, a recent

ISU graduate and first year teacher at Glen Oak Elementary in Peoria, Illinois.

√ M. Noraian provided information on the Step-Up Program. The informational

meetings are:

● Tuesday, September 12th @ 7:00 p.m. in DeGarmo 551

● Wednesday, September 20th @ 7:00 p.m. in DeGarmo 551

VI. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: S. Parry

Second: S. Otto




Tuesday, October 17th, 2017 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, C. Borders, T. Davis, S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, P.

Hash, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, K. Mountjoy, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Rosenthal,

P. Schoon, S. Semonis, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: J. Derden, L. Haling, S. Hardin, A. Meyer, L. Sutton, N. Uphold

Guests: K. Appel, H. Goldsmith, G. Higham, T. Hinkel, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, N. Latham, E. Palmer,

M. Parker, L. Randles, C. Rutherford, W. Smith

Call to Order by Chair: P. Schoon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Roll Call: Conducted by the recorder, T. Davis.

I. Approval of Minutes from September 19, 2017: Motion to approve the minutes from September

9, 2017:

Motion to approve: J. Rosenthal

Second: S. Parry

II. Information Items:

1. ISBE: Secondary Rule Change: N. Latham, voting ISBE board member, indicated at the last ISBE

meeting that the Secondary Rule Change was going up for public comment. It has not gone up yet, but it

should be soon.

All secondary programs need to align their programs to the SPA standards identified in the Rule Change.

Failure to do so by 2020 will result in programs not being able to admit students into their program. By

2024, programs that are not aligned will not be allowed to graduate anyone from the program. N. Latham

and T. Hinkel attend the ISBE meetings and believe that the review process will take that long.

J. Rosenthal asked when the NCATE visit was and if the programs were aligned to the SPA standards

then.

D. Garrahy responded 2012 was the last NCATE visit and programs that had SPAS were aligned.

J. Rosenthal asked if this would require curricular changes.

N. Latham responded that it should not affect curricular changes.

2. Disposition Concerns: D. Garrahy introduced W. Smith, General Counsel, and distributed a hand-out

of the disposition assessment that was revised by CTE. The first paragraph was commented on by S. Otto.

Out of 3600 teacher education candidates, only a small percentage (4%) receive a disposition concern.

The disposition concern is meant to be instructional, not punitive. It is a tool used for assessing behavior,

not a concern about a mental health or medical issue which requires a referral for accommodations.

Purpose of Disposition Concerns Assessment:

Expectations for all teacher candidates at ISU

Documenting concerns as soon as possible

Instructive/learning process for teacher candidates

Purpose indicated on document

Concerns about a student’s behavior can also be referred to the Redbird Care Team. You can also refer a

student to Student Access and Accommodation Services.

The author of the disposition concern is the only one who determines if the issue is resolvable or

unresolvable. If resolvable, the form must include a detailed plan of action to resolve the issue with a

deadline date for the resolution. The plan must be clear to the student. The student must be able to

articulate how the disposition concern was resolved. Once resolved, the author should contact T. Hinkel

to update the file. If the student does not resolve the issue by the deadline, contact T. Hinkel to inform

him of the missed deadline. The disposition concern becomes unresolvable at that time. When contacting

T. Hinkel, only state that the concern has either been resolved or the student has missed the deadline and it

is now unresolvable. Anyone interacting with our teacher candidates can write a disposition concern.

S. Otto clarified that an email can be sent to T. Hinkel to notify that a disposition has been resolved.

C. Borders added that the disposition concerns process is familiar within the College of Education. If the

information could get out to secondary programs and non-teacher education faculty/staff, the problematic

behavior for a student could be flagged earlier.

D. Garrahy added that it needs to go out to all five colleges so the word gets out to new faculty.

M. Noraian added that they have training for new faculty at CTLT and suggested a packet.

S. Otto added there were great videos for the clinical documentation form and maybe a video could be

done for disposition concerns.

T. Hinkel and his assistant, Jena Hobbs handle the processing of the disposition concerns. If the student

receives three and progress is stopped, the teacher candidate can appeal, first meeting with Dr. Garrahy

and then it goes to CTE/TERB.

W. Smith added if the student and parent are in the same room, staff can share information. Otherwise,

there has to be a signed FERPA on file.

Three unresolvable disposition concerns stop a teacher education candidate’s progress in the program.

When this happens, a certified letter is sent to the permanent address of the teacher candidate.

How to write a disposition concern:

Must use the most recent version of the form (October 2017)

Identify the indicator(s) in question

Include specific/detailed information as to how the student has not met expectations along with

any documentation or details relevant to the issue

o If the student has missed assignments or projects, list the actual assignments on the form

o If the student has been late to class, list the dates and/or the number of times the student has

been late

Write clearly so that others can understand the issued involved

Identify if the disposition concern is resolvable or unresolvable

o Include a deadline for resolving the concern

Meet with the student to go over the concerns and the form

The student must sign the form

o The student’s signature does not indicate agreement with the issue. It is only an

acknowledgement that the form has been received.

Send a copy to T. Hinkel to begin a file on the student

A disposition concern is confidential. Do not share the information with anyone else in the

program or outside of the program. The form is an internal document to University Teacher

Education.

Past disposition concerns that have been problematic:

Lack of detail

Inappropriate information included (i.e. mental or physical health)

Not filling a disposition concern in the past to avoid “getting the student in trouble”

Filling multiple disposition concern forms for one incident (i.e. University Supervisor and

Cooperating Teacher completing a form for the same issue

W. Smith indicated that for legal reasons, it is best for one form to be completed for an incident. This

will be a topic for a future CTE meeting.

D. Garrahy urged the members to share this information with their colleagues.

3. Teacher Education Handbook: D. Garrahy informed the members that a generic teacher education

handbook will be created to be given to all teacher education candidates. The following items are

suggested for inclusion:

Historical information about teacher education at ISU

The role of CTE

Programs and Colleges they are housed in

Assessment requirements

Milestones/Gateways

ISU Code of Conduct

Illinois Code of Ethics for Teachers

A list of ISU RSOs

The Student Interest Committee has been charged with providing additional input into the handbook.

The Teacher Education website has been updated to be more user friendly and has tabs for cooperating

teachers, school partners, and University Supervisors.

III. Subcommittee Reports

A. Curriculum Committee: S. Parry reported that the proposal for Elementary Education –

removing MAT 150 from the requirements, was already approved last semester.

The committee discussed the charge they received last semester, and talked about the needs of

students entering the teaching field, including knowing different kinds of accommodations,

cultural and social issues, different kinds of families, etc. Going forward, they think it would be

good to consider some sort of hybrid course (SED/EAF) since many of the students are not in

programs where they can add hours.

B. Student Interests: M. Noraian reported the committee has been working on a design logo for CTE

members and other colleagues to place on their office doors, tags for backpack, etc. D. Garrahy, J.

Derden, and M. Noraian met with a member of Design Streak. Options will be given to the CTE for a

decision in the spring.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests: No report.

D. UTE Assessment: C. Borders reported the committee is preparing to review the annual assessment

reports that are due on October 27, 2017. They will be reviewing them through mid-November

E. Vision: No report.

.

IV. Action Items:


A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members:

√ M. Noraian indicated the Secondary Meeting will be October 23, 2017 from 12:30 – 1:30 and

the location will be announced at a later time. Topic for discussion is about how EAF, TCH,

and the Secondary Programs work together.

VI. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: S. Otto

Second: S. French




Tuesday, November 7th, 2017 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, J. Dohrman, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, L. Haling,

K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, A. Meyer, K. Mountjoy, M. Noraian, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier, J. Rosenthal,

P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: S. Arnett-Hartwick, S. French, S. Hardin, P. Hash, C. Lawton, S. Osorio, N. Uphold

Guests: H. Goldsmith, T. Hinkel, C. Kaiden, D. Kilgore, M. Monts, M. Parker, C. Rutherford,

L. Thetard



I. Information Items: C. Borders presented PowerPoint presentation on UTEAC update

A. Annual Assessment Review Process: C. Borders indicated there are four key assessments

● Content Exam

● edTPA

● Formative Pedagogy

● edDispositions

All programs will take each of the five areas to assess within each program:

● Content Knowledge

● Pedagogy

● Impact on Students Learning

● Clinical Practices

● Dispositions

Each program will document the status, rationale and action plans.

B. Annual Assessment Review Checklist Rubric: C. Borders stated that the Annual Assessment

was reviewed by three members of the UTEAC subcommittee using the checklist. Any reviewer that

has any concern will need to state the concern and the feedback goes back to the program. After the

feedback is sent to the programs, a report will be shared with CTE.

S. Otto asked how UTEAC members are selected.

D. Garrahy responded that the CTE bylaws direct how the CTE subcommittees are formed. Every

subcommittee has a chair of CTE, based on representations of the colleges. They include non-members,

also.

C. edDispositions Program Refinement Protocol: C. Borders stated that EPP assessments must meet

Validity and Reliability. There is a ten step protocol to follow if a program wants to refine the official

edDispositions process approved in May. Data would still need to be collected during proposal period.

UTEAC is asking CTE to allow programs to collect data and to vote to allow this to happen.

J. Rosenthal asked if the refinements will be aligned with the official documents.

Any refinement must align with the official instrument. CTE must report out as an EPP on the overall

edDispositions.

Each program would be responsible for aligning. The committee should be not be interpreting each

program’s instrument. E. Palmer, D. Garrahy, and C. Borders will need assistance from programs.

D. Garrahy added that the draft checklist form is similar to program review.

D. Minors Policy: J. Goodman, Alicia Lage, and Mark Gramley from the Environmental Health and

Safety Department were present to give an overview of the Minors policy. Effective 1/1/18, faculty will

be required to obtain a Criminal Background Check.

J. Goodman indicated that a committee developed the policy 6 years ago. Academic Senate made some

changes and it was passed on 3/15/17. Intent is for faculty to go through Background check one time if on

a continuous appointment.

E. Lage indicated if faculty are sponsoring or co-sponsoring activities, such as camps, weekends, RSOs

tutoring, etc., then they need to register the activity. Direct contact is the key thing to think about to know

if registration is needed. Organizations that rent facilities do not go through the process. A recurring

event would require registration once. For example, when Special Olympics is using our facilities, but

not sponsored by us, they would not go through the registration process.

T. Davis asked about the students who go to high schools at the request of the high school.

Response is the students would be considered volunteers at Unit 5 and need to follow the Unit 5 volunteer

process.

Prospective students/recruitment activities may be an exception to the policy. For clinical courses in lab

schools, faculty will need both checks.

Our school partners assume that ISU is conducting a criminal background check.

M. Parker asked who is responsible to make sure University Supervisors have completed the background

check.

The University Supervisors would go through the abbreviated form. Anyone who does not follow the

policy is subject to disciplinary action.

M. Noraian asked if a report could be generated and sent to the department listing names of people who

still need to complete the form, similar to the report that is received when a staff member has not

completed the ethics training.

Normally, an email may be sent at completion of the form and an approval/deny will be sent to the

applicant. During October, faculty may have completed the form but not received confirmation. They

should be okay. There was a glitch that stopped the confirmation email and follow up email recently.

S. Otto brought up a concern of a classroom in Business that does not lock from the inside. She wanted to

know who to contact due to concern.

J. Goodman indicated to send a message to Emergency Management. He also added that A. Woodruff,

ISU Police, has a program on how to secure rooms without locks.

A. Lage requested any questions be sent to them. In the future, they hope to edit the policy and make

clear what some of the exceptions might be.

II. Approval of Minutes from October 17, 2017: Motion to approve the minutes from October 17, 2017:

Motion to approve: S. Otto

Second: J. Rosenthal

Minutes unanimously approved with one abstention.


A. Curriculum Committee: S. Parry reported that DAN 105 and 107 have been revised so that they are

now for majors only. New versions have been created for nonmajors. The Dance Teacher Education

program has been updated to reflect this.

HIS 100 has been revised so that this introduction class is now for freshman only.

B. Student Interests: No report.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests: No report.

D. UTE Assessment: C. Borders reported in the Information Items.

E. Vision: D. Garrahy reported that the committee met on 10/24/17 and went through the templates for

the NCBC. They are working on the process if a NCBC is done and later there is a “hit” and/or criminal

conviction, how will this be handled.

IV. Action Items: None


A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members:

√ D. Garrahy reminded the committee the Career Center Interview Tips is tonight at 6:00 in

Stevenson.

VI. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: J. Rosenthal

Second: S. Parry


Illinois State University Council for Teacher Education

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. DeGarmo Hall, Room 551

Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, T. Davis, J. Derden, J. Dohrman, S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, L. Haling, S. Hardin, P. Hash, K. Janos, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, H. Olson, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry,J. Regnier, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: S. Arnett-Hartwick, C . Borders, S. Jones-Bock, K. Mountjoy, J. Rosenthal, N. Uphold

Guests: H. Goldsmith, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, M. Monts, E. Palmer, M. Parker, A. Parrott, L. Thetard, J. Watson



I. Approval of Minutes from November 7, 2017; Information Items: Motion to approve the minutesfrom November 7, 2017:Motion to approve: S. ParrySecond: S. OttoMinutes unanimously approved with no abstentions.


A. Curriculum Committee: S. Parry reported on an information item and a proposal that will require avote.

1. Information Item: Spanish Teacher Education deleted SPA 223 and added SPA 214 –Oral Communication. No change in hours and there was a need to strengthen OralProficiency.

2. Vote Required: Elementary Education deleted Math 150 and moved the learning outcomes intoother courses.TCH 318/248 moved into Required TCH courses.M. Noraian asked if there was going to be a new Math course.L. Haling responded that students used to take five required Math courses and now there willstill be four required Math courses, with the learning outcomes included in the other courses. Inaddition, the Economics courses required are now listed by course number, TCH 318/248 movedto the list of required TCH courses, and the elective tracks changed from 12 to 9 hours, because ofthe move of TCH 318/248.

Motion: S. Parry motioned to approve the revision of the Elementary Teacher Education program. Second: S. French Motion passed with 22 votes and 0 abstentions.

B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported that students are continuing to discuss educating students about CTE. They are working with Design Streak to develop logo signs to put on doors and have buttons that are visible for students to wear. The Program Directors will be receiving Student Essays form for Student Recognition of Excellence Award. They will be asked to nominate one to three students for the award. C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests Committee: J. Gorski indicated there was no meeting and they are waiting on the bylaws. D. Vision Committee: D. Garrahy reported the committee is working on the process and templates for the National CBC process to be launched next year. In the spring semester, the committee developed templates. Office of General Counsel sent back suggestions to the committee for their review last week. They have looked at four of the templates. An appeals process for teacher candidates is in development. Currently, if there is a “hit” on the CBC, the teacher education candidate meets with the Director before he or she can receive a copy of their CBC. The Vision Committee will discuss if the process will still be handled that way. Forms need to be developed:

• Student Consent Form • Committee approval of appeal • Committee denial of appeal

And, a potential new level of review, a CBC Review committee comprised of representatives from the Office of Clinical Experiences and Licensure Processes, faculty from Teacher Education Programs, University Police, etc. E. UTEAC: S. Williams reported the committee is reviewing the AAR reports and discussing Pedagogy

Assessments for validity and reliability. . III. Information Items 1. edTPA National Conference: T. Davis shared that she attended the edTPA National Conference in San Jose early in November with three colleagues. The conference was fantastic. They broke down all academic language of edTPA. The lesson plan template was used for formative feedback. The Business Education program has taken the template and modified it for their program and clinical supervisors. T. Davis shared the document with S. Conner and it will be sent out the minutes and put on SharePoint. E. Palmer added that it was an excellent conference and the template for formative feedback would be excellent for all teachers. Linda Darling Hammond is Professor of Education at Stanford University and was a keynote speaker.

2. CAEP Update: D. Garrahy indicated that due to CAEP’s delay, Advanced Programs will not be included in the Spring 2018 accreditation report and Spring 2019 site visits. With the support of the Provost and Dean Schoon, the Advanced Programs to be included in the accreditation process were notified November 27th. During the 2018-2019 Accreditation Cycle, our Advanced Programs receive accreditation when the initial programs are accredited in 2019. Advanced Programs will go up for accreditation in 2026. D. Garrahy, E. Palmer, and C. Borders will resume meeting with the Advanced Programs once a month in February. Initial programs are on their second of three semesters of data collections. There are four main assessments:

o Formative Pedagogy o Content Exam o edTPA o edDispositions

UTEAC is currently working on the protocol for initial programs wishing to submit an alternative edDispositions assessment for spring semester 2018. A pre-student teaching clinical survey was sent out to programs yesterday, collecting data on CAEP 2 Standard: Clinical Partnerships and Practice. ISBE still does not have a signed an agreement with CAEP. Additional data will be provided to ISU for CAEP Accreditation from ISBE. Its’ focus is on a “candidate satisfaction survey”, completed by candidates when they apply for their Illinois Teaching License. ISBE is in the process of developing an “Employer Satisfaction Survey” and a “Novice Satisfaction Survey.” Our University Assessment Office and J. Rosenthal are assisting with demographic data for Fall 2016, Fall 2017, and Fall 2018. We have had a CAEP Adhoc committee representing cross campus constituents, teacher education faculty since 2016-2017. The CAEP Self-Study Report is due mid July 2018 and site visit dates have been set. The team will arrive on Saturday, April 6, 2019 and depart on Tuesday afternoon, April 9, 2019. 3. edTPA Update: E. Palmer presented a Power Point presentation on the fall 2017 edTPA performance. Out of 161 candidates, there was an initial pass rate of 92% which is lower than anticipated. The mean portfolio score was 46, which has been the mean all along. The range of scores was 30-63. Low rubrics 9, 10, and 13. These rubrics are improving but still below 3.

For retakes, there were 5 due to condition codes. There were 8 with scores below 37. There were 10

Task 1 and 2 Task 2 retakes. There was one full retake. Condition codes are more for fall than all of last year. Programs need to caution students to follow guidelines.

Projected number of retakes for 2018-2019 is 96, with an 88% pass rate. For 2019-2020, 152 projected retakes and an 81% pass rate. We have performed lower than we have in the past.

Anything from previous submissions cannot be used for submission again. Each portfolio is reviewed

by E. Palmer and the program. They look at the scores and offer advice for retakes. E. Palmer can spend up to 5 hours on a Task 2 retake and they are very time consuming. She discusses the expectations and logistics of what they need to resubmit and develops a timeline for retake. The portfolio that was originally submitted is open and can be reviewed and used as a learning tool. Retakes can be submitted only during submission windows. The turn-around time is very quick and normally within six days.

Workshops for faculty on facilitating retakes will be held in January and February and faculty can

receive Professional Development Hours. M. Noraian asked if programs have a sense of why scores are lower.

E. Palmer indicated that no explanation is given for the condition codes. The handbooks target student learning. S. Otto asked what work needs to be done and do we need to revisit for procedures for retakes. E. Palmer responded that all retakes come through her. There needs to be one person mentor for retakes.

D. Garrahy added that there needs to be succession planning in each department. Vouchers for students with financial needs are based on numbers obtained from the Financial Aid

office. COE gave $100, $200, and $300 vouchers. There were a total of 89 recipients, totaling $19,200.00. All retakes were given vouchers. E. Palmer displayed some thank-you’s received from students who received the vouchers.

The Midwest edTPA Conference, Raising the Bar, will be held Friday, May 4, 2018 at the ISU

Alumni Center. Proposals are due December 15, 2017. Registration opens January 8, 2018 and the cost is $45.00. IV. Discussion Items 1. edDisposition Program Refinement Protocol: S. Williams indicated C. Borders had presented the protocol at last CTE meeting. Approval of UTEAC and standards coming to UTEAC (in minutes). P. Schoon added that at the last meeting the edDispostions Refinement Protocol was an information item and this meeting it was a discussion item. There were no questions.

V. Action Items: None

VI. Announcements and Last Comments:

A. Vice-Chair: None B. Members: √ D. Garrahy stated that ISBE is discussing a common student teaching evaluation. At the SEPLB meeting in February, the common evaluation will be discussed and will be expected to be used by all institutions. ISBE is suggesting 10 common themed items. All universities would use this common evaluation and data would be reported to ISBE. P. Schoon added that we want to keep a close watch on this. It could be an infringement on curriculum and academic freedom. Academic Senate needs to be involved. This would be a burden on ISU to upload and document.

VII. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: S. Parry Second: S. Otto Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.



Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, C. Borders, T. Davis, S. French, J. Derden, D.

Garrahy, L. Haling, P. Hash, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S.

Parry, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Members Absent: J. Dorhman, S. Dustin, J. Gorski, S. Hardin, K. Janos, K. Mountjoy, J. Regnier, L.

Sutton S. Williams, D. Wilson,

Guests: T. Hinkel, E. Palmer, M. Parker, B. Jacobsen

Call to Order by Chair: Roll call was taken by P. Schoon

I. Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2017: Motion to approve the minutes from

December 5, 2017:

S. Otto


II. Subcommittee Reports:

A. Curriculum: No report

B. Students Interests Committee: M. Noraian sent out a reminder to faculty for student

names for the award contest. They are meeting with Design Streak about a CTE logo.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests Committee: No report

D. Vision Committee: D. Garrahy met with P. Schoon prior to Holiday Break and

decided to put National CBC on hold until August due to her CAEP Accreditation

responsibilities this semester.

E. UTEAC: They are working on AARs and feedback for formative pedagogy.

III. Information items: ISBE’s “Partnership for Educator Preparation (PEP) Program:

C. Borders reported that N. Latham is ISU’s representative on the PEP committee. It is COE’s

responsibility to report to ISBE now. We were in pilot program last year and this year we are

required to report data from all departments from the last 3 years (2014 through 2017). This

includes all students that have ever had an education major. This report is due April 30, 2018.

Entering the data is very time consuming as all the different programs have different entry

points. CTE may need to discuss program entry points such as junior year and/or 60 completed

hours for state reporting. Currently, the ISBE report does not match the Federal reporting. The

website for more information about the PEP program is https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Partnership-

for-Educator-Preparation.aspx

IV. Discussion items: No report

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Partnership-for-Educator-Preparation.aspx

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Partnership-for-Educator-Preparation.aspx

V. Action items: edDispositions Program Refinement Protocol (C. Borders)

J. Rosenthal moved to approve

Second: D. Garrahy

VI. Announcement and Last Comments:

P. Schoon: Announced that there will be a nationwide search for the Superintendent for the Lab

schools starting this Spring in hopes to have one in place by July 1st. COE faculty will chair the

search committee along with four Faculty Associates from the Lab Schools, both current

principals and up to two additional Lab faculty. P. Schoon also reported that DeGarmo Rm 551

will be upgraded and only used for meetings, no classes. DeGarmo 21 has been opened for

classes.

D. Garrahy:

a) Reported that N. Latham asked ISBE for feedback about their student teacher evaluation. The

February SEPLB meeting was cancelled. This was the meeting in which the state’s student

teaching evaluation was to be discussed.

b) The latest information on the ISBE/CAEP Agreement: At a meeting on December 11th, we

heard that ISBE is not going to sign the CAEP agreement. More information to come on this.

c) The CTE minutes and agendas are now on the Cecilia J. Lauby Center website.

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/teacher/council_teachered/

Adjournment: 3:28pm

S. Perry

Second: S. Semonis

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/teacher/council_teachered/



Tuesday, January 30th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, C. Borders, T. Davis, S. French, D. Garrahy, P. Hash,

K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier,

J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: J. Derden, J. Gorski, L. Haling, S. Hardin, K. Mountjoy, S. Semonis, L. Sutton

Guests: S. Dunn, J. Fitzgerald, T. Hinkel, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, K. Laudner, M. Monts, H. Olsen, E. Palmer,

C. Rutherford, L. Thetard, J. Watson



I. Approval of Minutes from January 16, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from January 16, 2018:


Second: S. Parry

Minutes unanimously approved with no abstentions.


A. Curriculum Committee: No Report.

B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported that she and S. Jones-Bock met with Design

Streak, consisting of 10 senior design students. They are going to create cups with the CTE logo. A

larger sub-committee from the Student Interests Committee will meet next week and they will narrow the

logo to three designs and then will bring it to CTE for their vote.

Student nominations have been requested and are due by 2/2/18. Each program has been asked to submit

three names of students in their senior semester. The essays are on Literacy and Diversity for the Student

Recognition of Excellence Award. A reminder will be sent out to programs by Friday.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests Committee: No Report.

D. Vision Committee: No report.

E. UTEAC: C. Borders reported the committee is currently in AAR review.


1. ISBE Update on Requirements for Instructors of Dual-Credit Courses:

C. Borders indicated B. Stoffel, Provost’s Office, has shared that the conversation at the state level

is high schools can offer dual credit. Some schools, primarily rural schools have a difficult time finding

qualified faculty.

Requirements for dual credit is any Master’s Degree and 18 hours of course work in the content

area.

S. Otto asked if the hours need to be undergraduate or graduate.

C. Borders replied that she unsure and will check with the Rural District Council.

J. Rosenthal added that this has been an ongoing issue. These are primarily community college level

courses taught at the high school level. Approach this recommendation cautiously.

P. Schoon added that if we do not consider it, then another University will.

M. Noraian stated we could command a positive program.

J. Rosenthal indicated there are other ways to consider AP courses – know curriculum of credit. In dual

credit, high school cooperating teachers teaching courses, not sure what is being taught.

IV. Discussion Items

1. CAEP/ISBE/PEP Update:

D. Garrahy gave a timeline on the ISBE-CAEP State Partnership Agreement. ISBE and CAEP have been

in conversation regarding an agreement since 2014. As most recently as October 2017, at the IACTE

Conference, ISBE representatives shared that progress towards a signed agreement was moving forward.

December 2017: Jason Helfer, ISBE Assistant Superintendent indicated they are not signing CAEP

contract.

January 2018: N. Latham spoke with ISBE staff members who indicated that ISBE will not be signing

the state partnership agreement.

This is a timely issue given that ISU is in the midst of preparing for CAEP accreditation. The

conversation has long been that ISBE and CAEP were moving toward a state partnership. When this was

first proposed, Universities could submit to CAEP for national accreditation or to ISBE for state

accreditation. If ISU continues toward CAEP Accreditation, ISU will also be required to complete the

ISBE State Accreditation process. The Provost’s Office has sent this decision to the CTE and programs

for discussion and then to CTE to vote. The CTE Executive Committee met last week and had a lengthy

discussion regarding the issue.

P. Hash asked if the discussion between ISBE and CAEP has stopped.

D. Garrahy responded that they have not necessarily stopped and they could come back in the

future and sign the agreement.

S. Otto asked if this is a moving target and if CAEP and ISBE are duplicating.

D. Garrahy responded that it is a moving target and CAEP is new and constantly changing.

Currently, there is no state accreditation process to date.

PEP (New State process for annual reporting) was originally based on CAEP and CAEP’s original eight

annual indicators. CAEP no longer required eight indicators. This may be part of why the state has not

signed the agreement.

C. Borders indicated that the state may not have a state accreditation system in place for 2-3 years.

S. Otto asked if NCATE will lapse if ISBE does not have a system in place.

P. Hash commented that it appears a lot of work has gone into this already.

Self-study is in progress and due July 13, 2018 with a massive amount of work that has been completed

and much more work to be completed. The Lauby Center and Associate Dean are responsible for the

report now. In the past, programs were responsible by submitting their reports to their SPA. When

transitioning to CAEP, teacher education programs needed to decide whether they wanted to pursue

“National Recognition” through CAEP. If they did, they would choose to submit their program report to

their SPA for a “Mid-Term” Review. Three programs at the Initial Level opted for this: Early Childhood

Education, Middle Level Education and Foreign Languages. At the Advanced Level, School Psychology

was the only program submitting to their SPA. Given our CAEP timeline, a decision needs to be made

fairly quickly to determine where the focus needs to be.

D. Garrahy added that something has to give; there are three members working on the project that have

full time positions: D. Garrahy, E. Palmer and C. Borders. For example, The National CBC has been put

on hold until the fall due to D. Garrahy’s CAEP responsibilities.

P. Schoon added we need to ask ourselves what does this do for our students and the College of

Education.

A. Meyer asked if there were any implications.

D. Garrahy responded that historically, teacher education accreditation would assist graduates in

transitioning their teaching license to another state, if their institution was an NCATE accredited

university. This is no longer the case due to many other requirements.

P. Schoon added that teacher education accreditation does not impact licensure.

J. Rosenthal stated that edTPA is a form of accountability. Our pass rates are high. Programs that score

low will be looked at. With edTPA, PEP, and our own AAR provides accountability.

P. Schoon asked how we are going to hold our programs accountable.

edTPA and AAR are ways to hold the programs accountable.

C. Borders stated in 2018-2019 all COE programs are up for University program review. Other teacher

education programs can find their timeline program review on the Provost’s website.

S. Otto asked what the bigger picture looks like; will this hurt/help our reputation nationally.

P. Schoon responded ISU is the leader in the state. Other institutions will follow our lead.

S. Otto asked if ISU would still be a leadership and have a national reputation in edTPA recognition if we

were not CAEP accredited.

E. Palmer responded that she has never been asked if we are CAEP accredited.

M. Noraian added secondary programs have discipline specific professional organizations. For History,

their organization is aligned with CAEP, but CAEP is not required.

M. Winsor stated he related CAEP to a peer-reviewed journal versus no CAEP and submitting to a pay-to-

publish journal.

C. Borders indicated the leading body is AACTE. There is conversation about other ways to measure

quality education.

A. Meyer asked if this was a short term decision or can we revisit it later.

C. Borders responded if we stay in CAEP, the self-study with all of its time requirements must be

completed.

P. Schoon stated if the state decides to sign later then CTE can revisit this decision.

D. Garrahy reiterated what is best for our teacher candidates? How does what we do directly impact our

teacher candidates?

S. Otto’s concern is graduate programs are getting a pass from CAEP until the next visit. Does the

graduate programs still get a pass from the state if they do not have a plan in place?

D. Garrahy stated we choose to be accredited in teacher education at Illinois State University, but it is not

a requirement. Accreditation in teacher education does not impact licensure.

P. Schoon added CAEP is not giving ISBE what they want. Students need to know that leaving CAEP

will not impact their ability to get a job.

D. Garrahy added that principals have asked her of the teacher candidates ready to graduate and begin

teaching in their school district. They do not ask if ISU is accredited by CAEP.

S. Otto asked what the time line is.

P. Schoon stated this is the discussion phase and the next CTE meeting is 2/6/18. CTE members need to

go back to their colleges and have these discussions in a timely format. M. Noraian will facilitate

secondary programs. Gentle pressures are being applied from upper administration.

C. Zimmerman added that in Organic Farming, a farm can pay a substantial amount of money to be

certified as organic, even when they engage in those practices. So some farms are organic, but they just

don’t pay for the label. C. Zimmerman stated it sounds like ISU already does all the things it needs to in

order to be consistent with certification for organic practices. She was asking if that was the nature of the

issue: should we pay to get certification, even though everyone knows we do organic farming?

The response was ISU can be at the level of CAEP standards without being CAEP accredited and going

through the processes.

P. Schoon asked if programs do things in their programs due to CAEP.

S. Jones-Bock added that we are doing everything we should be doing within our programs to meet the

CAEP/ISBE/PEP guidelines. S. Jones-Bock asked if they could have a chart of pro’s/con’s to take back to

faculty or bring to their faculty meeting.

D. Garrahy indicated she will send information for the Executive Committee to review and edit and will

send information out to CTE members as soon as possible.

P. Schoon stated that Illinois has determined that CAEP is not important.

S. Parry reiterated what is the benefit of CAEP right now?

P. Hash asked what is the benefit of not being accredited by CAEP?

J. Rosenthal stated ISU is known as a quality teacher education program.

S. Otto thinks some issues may have been addressed because of standards. She is concerned that who we

are is not lost.

A. Meyer stated that we have internal review processes and state processes in place.

P. Schoon added that COE is paying for a full-time position for PEP.

C. Borders added that she understands S. Otto’s concerns. She is thankful for the push from CAEP.

UTEAC and best practices will continue to improve. CTE is the body to ensure we are meeting national

best practices.

S. Otto added that she is concerned that diversity may be lost as an unintended consequence.

P. Schoon stated that is shared governance that drives accountability and not accreditation.

S. Jones-Bock added that Advisory Committees also drive best practices, they have a Northern Co-hort

and a middle of the state co-hort. Their programs are still following standards and embedded in their

syllabi.


VI. Announcements and Last Comments

A. Chair

√ P. Schoon introduced Kevin Laudner as Interim Chair of COE, effective June 1, 2018.

B. Members

√ T. Davis announced Business Teacher Education Information night is tonight at 6:30.

VII. Adjournment


Second: S. Parry




Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, T. Davis, J. Derden, S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, P. Hash,

K. Janos, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton,

S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: S. Arnett-Hartwick, C. Borders, L. Haling, S. Hardin, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, K. Mountjoy,

J. Rosenthal

Guests: K. Appel, T. Hinkel, P. Twyman Hoff, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, L. Lienhart, M. Monts, H. Olsen,

M. Parker, C. Rutherford, M. Swerdlik, J. Thomas



I. Approval of Minutes from January 30, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from January 30, 2018:


Second: S. Parry



A. Curriculum Committee: No report.

B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported that the committee sent out nomination emails

for the Student Recognition of Excellence Award. The students have a month to submit their essay and

lesson plans.

C. University Liaison and Faculty Interests Committee: No report.


E. UTEAC: No report.



1. CAEP/ISBE/PEP Discussion/Feedback (CTE Members):

M. Noraian indicated they had a secondary education meeting and the focus was to stay with CAEP or

State. They discussed the Pro’s and Con’s. D. Garrahy was in attendance and shared the information.

There were 10 people present and the majority stated they would set aside CAEP. One program

understood the reasoning for not staying with CAEP but they voted to stay with CAEP as they had just

gone through and received National Recognition from their SPA.

Discussion: M. Winsor indicated the Math department’s concerns. Math asked if we were not CAEP accredited how

this would impact Department of Education funding.

D. Garrahy responded that when NCATE was NCATE, it played a role. CAEP is not established enough

to impact funding according to colleagues from other institutions.

M. Winsor added that edDispositions is part of CAEP.

D. Garrahy stated that edDispositions is not precipitated by CAEP. edDispositions started 6 years ago

when D. Curtis was the Dean.

M. Winsor indicated that we have already completed work on CAEP. Are we ready to rely on the state

for accreditation?

D. Garrahy responded that CAEP accreditation is an option and ISBE accreditation is a requirement and

state mandated.

M. Winsor asked how much overlap would there be between CAEP and ISBE, when state makes a

determination.

D. Garrahy indicated we do not know at this time.

P. Schoon added that ISBE has not released all of their information. We do have PEP, the new ISBE

required reporting mechanism for teacher education programs. There were originally 80 variables. There

are now 67-69 variables.

T. Hinkel asked ISBE to align with Title II. There are currently 30 indicators on PEP that must be

reported to ISBE. ISBE used about half of the data from Title II plus their own data points.

M. Winsor asked how much work will be required for each department.

D. Garrahy stated to date programs have had to respond to two surveys, IPTS matrix and the

program/professional education sequence alignment, and clinical experience requirements in each

program/professional education sequence. Another survey identifying teacher education faculty will be

going out in the next few weeks. D. Garrahy, E. Palmer and T. Hinkel from CELPO and C. Borders, the

Associate Dean for the College of Education handle the majority of the workload. Reporting is much

more centralized now, especially since the majority of teacher education programs opted to go up with the

EPP versus with their SPA.

L. Sutton asked if we have enough people to do the work.

P. Schoon responded that we do not know yet

L. Sutton asked what ISBE wants.

P. Schoon and D. Garrahy both responded that we do not know yet. The PEP dashboard may be based on

the original 8 indicators from CAEP. Reiterated that ISBE is not signing the CAEP agreement.

L. Sutton asked if we really want to rely on the state. Are we lowering the bar for our teacher education

candidates? L. Sutton added he thinks national accreditation is good for our profession and our students.

He also expressed concern about COE Dean moving to Provost’s Office will there will be sustained

leadership, the 5 year Strategic Plan is up this year, and the donors. There is a lot of uncertainty and will

donors give less if we are not accredited?

D. Garrahy responded that we need to understand the differences between University accreditation and

Teacher Education accreditation. University accreditation is required and ISU is accredited by Higher

Learning Commission (HLC). Teacher Education accreditation is not required. There are 91 institutions

in the state and only 23 are accredited by CAEP/NCATE. For example, University of Illinois is not

NCATE/CAEP accredited.

L. Sutton appreciates the distinction and credits agencies, such as UCEA (The University Council for

Educational Administration). If we remove CAEP how will this impact our programs and what will be

cut?

D. Garrahy responded that it is an option for the University to work toward/seek out accreditation in

teacher education (CAEP).

ISBE may say do the CAEP work and the State will accept it.

A. Meyer stated that D. Hatch is a CAEP Reviewer and contacted CAEP. She shared information

regarding the role of the SPA, when the State does not have a signed partnership with CAEP.

D. Garrahy has asked a similar question to CAEP regarding the role of the SPA when the state does not

have a signed agreement. A colleague from another university is doing the same.

P. Schoon added that National Recognition does not go away if you recently earned it and ISBE signs an

agreement with CAEP in the future.

L. Sutton added that he does not trust the state and thinks it is god to have National Recognition, Badge of

Distinction. L. Sutton cares about the profession and does not trust the politicians to lead the profession.

S. Parry asked if we decide to put the decision on hold, would it impact the reporting process.

P. Schoon indicated in the past NCATE and CAEP reporting would replace ISBE reporting. Now, we

must report to ISBE even if we have CAEP. CAEP is not required by the state. P. Schoon added that the

decision can be reversed if ISBE signs CAEP agreement in the future.

S. Otto feels we are moving too quickly without knowing the impact to national funding and other issues

and she and her colleagues in EAF do not support going away with CAEP.

S. Parry added if we put CAEP on hold, are there are issues due to timelines.

S. Otto stated that putting on hold is problematic and why we cannot continue with CAEP and continue

the discussion as we have already done a substantial amount of work for CAEP and the unknown of what

the state will do.

P. Schoon stated that it is easy for members to say “we” put a lot of work and effort in CAEP. It is not

the faculty of departments putting the work into it. It is the staff across campus, in the CELP and

Associate Dean’s office. Again, what has CAEP done for our programs and students?

The University has a duty to question how the COE is spending resources and time and it is the University

that wants us to make this decision quickly. The state no longer values the Teacher Education

accreditation.

D. Garrahy added the Lauby Center serves all programs. The state is not giving us a choice in what to do

but we will be required to complete ISBE reports.

P. Schoon responded the state wants more. The state wants control of teacher education programs.

P. Hash indicated he knows the state wants the data with data points and Illinois Professional Teaching

Standards, what else does ISBE want? P. Hash stated there are many questions and would it help to have

people talk to ISBE.

S. Otto added that a colleague informed her that in Indiana the state tried to move toward no national

accreditation and lower standards. The school was able to fight back by pointing to CAEP requirements.

D. Garrahy reiterated that we still have things in place:

Program Review at University – labor intensive

ISBE required Reporting Mandates

AAR Process (CTE approved annual assessment)

T. Hinkel indicated programs are being updated/revised by state requirements so they align to

national/SPA standards. T. Hinkel identified many of the common states our candidates leave Illinois for,

do not require CAEP accreditation. Four states with the largest recipients of ISU teacher education

alumns, do not have CAEP-STATE Partnerships (Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and Texas).

A. Meyer asked if a TCH member could have a role on UTEAC and TCH would like more time before

this becomes an Action item.

P. Schoon stated that it will not be an action item at the 2/20/18 CTE meeting. The Exec Committee

needs to meet to determine what the Action Item will be.

D. Garrahy responded that we have gently been given a timeline from higher administration to determine

if we continue with CAEP given where we are in the accreditation cycle and impending deadlines.



A. Members

√ M. Noraian informed the committee that they are actively sending out Pipeline grant requests.

We currently have three: Chicago, Decatur, and Peoria

√ M. Noraian is sending on to the membership more information about students signing up for

STEP UP, faculty opportunities to redesign courses with grant support from NCUE, and a mini

refresher opportunity for faculty who have already done a full redesign grant.

VII. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: S. French

Second: P. Hash




Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, J. Battisto, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, M. Ely, S.

French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, L. Haling, P. Hash, K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio,

S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, S. Williams, M. Winsor,

C. Zimmerman

Absent: M. Lartz, C. Lawton, K. Mountjoy

Guests: K. Appel, H. Goldsmith, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, N. Latham, B. Meyer, H. Olsen, E. Palmer,

M. Parker, D. Renn, C. Rutherford, S. Sanden, J. Watson



I. Approval of Minutes from February 6, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from February 6, 2018:

Motion to approve: S. French

Second: P. Hash

Minutes unanimously approved with two abstentions.



B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported that the committee met with Design Streak and

the committee will choose three logos and bring to the CTE in the future for a vote.

The committee has received student applications, including essays and lesson plans, for the Student

Award. They will be receiving the essays within a month.



E. UTEAC: C. Borders reported the committee received/submitted three TCH for revisions of

edDispositions and they were all approved. AAR reports will be reviewed and the feedback returned to

programs within the next two weeks.


1. Spring Colloquium: S. Jones-Bock indicated that the committee preparing for the spring colloquium

has put the plans on hold as the Bylaw work is critical and due to hit at the same time as the colloquium.

The Bylaws are delayed in Academic Senate. S. Jones-Bock is asking thoughts of the committee as to

whether we have the spring colloquium or resume Spring 19.

S. Otto stated the Bylaws need to happen.

D. Garrahy added they have been at the Academic Senate for almost a year.

S. Jones-Bock added that if we are having the spring 2018 colloquium, we need a larger group to assist.

There are no related events are scheduled that could include the colloquium.

M. Noraian suggested possibly have TCH/U-High/Secondary Programs included for their feedback on the

clinicals/Disposition forms and microteaching.

P. Schoon stated for S. Jones-Bock to go back to committee and provide recommendation.

S. Otto stated that it is almost mid-term and the Bylaws are important, can we not do the spring 2018

colloquium.

M. Noraian thanked A. Meyer and J. Gorski for inviting secondary programs to the TCH/U-High meeting.

It was very interesting and helpful.

P. Schoon proposed to discuss now and make a decision.

Motion to postpone the spring 2018 colloquium: D. Garrahy

Second: S. Otto

It was unanimously voted the spring colloquium is postponed for 2018.

M. Noraian added the Secondary Ed committee will plan a meeting with U-High, TCH and faculty.


1. CAEP Accreditation: P. Schoon stated A. Meyer on behalf of TCH, requested at the last

CTE meeting for further discussion of moving forward or discontinuing CAEP.

Discussion:

A. Meyer, TCH, had concerns regarding ambiguity at the state level. A. Meyer realizes the

tremendous work that a small group does. The amount of ambiguity from the state with lack

of direction is concerning and they are hesitant to drop CAEP for PEP only. TCH feels that some

type of external review is important due to the level of ambiguity from the state.

S. Parry indicated that L. Thetard from the English Education department sent S. Parry a letter that

was also sent to M. Noraian, M. Winsor, and C. Zimmerman – CAS representatives. The

consensus within the English Education Program is they are not in favor of CAEP accreditation.

P. Schoon added they can provide a copy of the letter to the committee members.

S. Otto commented that other universities are waiting to see what ISU will do with CAEP.

Some institutions have indicated that they will go with CAEP in an effort to compete with

ISU.

C. Borders agreed that this would be a great marketing tool. ISU’s reputation is so strong that

pulling students from us would be unlikely. Parents have never asked if we are accredited.

L. Haling stated maybe we have not been asked because we always have been accredited in

teacher education.

A. Meyer added in the TCH meetings, Best Teacher Education in Illinois was googled. The

only column that can be seen is CAEP Yes/No. A. Meyer asked the students on the committee

if not being accredited mattered to them.

P. Schoon asked the students of CTE for their thoughts.

J. Battisto stated that ISU is accepted by employers/schools and that is what matters to him.

P. Hash stated there is a misunderstanding that national teacher education accreditation does not

mean you can teach anywhere in the United States.

K. Janos added as long as she can get a degree and a job that is all that matters to her. Only concern

she has is if in the future it would matter to be accredited.

D. Garrahy reiterated: University accreditation IS required.

Teacher Education accreditation IS NOT required.

P. Schoon stated our students have always been professional and their thoughts carry a lot of weight.

J. Rosenthal reiterated edTPA is a game changer. We have 98% pass rates, unique in the state.

Pass rates are going to be critical.

S. Otto questioned how long would we be unaccredited given the state’s situation?

L. Haling added that we have really good programs and we have always gone above and beyond.

L. Haling feels we should get accreditation as CAEP is easy to obtain. Why run the risk of

negative/detrimental publicity. L. Haling is personally in favor of going with CAEP.

D. Garrahy stated for the 2012 NCATE visit April 14th – 18th, 2012 and, on 5/1/12, there were 6

motions to discontinue

assessments:

ITPS 1-9

Instructional Analysis for Inclusion, Part I

Instructional Analysis for Inclusion, Part II

Language Arts Assessment

Initial Reflective Essay

Final Reflective Essay

There were 14 assessments that were removed from data two weeks after NCATE site visit.

N. Latham added that she was part of the NCATE visit for 2012 and the one 7 years prior to 2012.

From the NCATE visit, we learned and became better at self-assessment and framework. Our

programs were much stronger at assessing than required due to SPA’s.

D. Garrahy indicated that all initial level programs going up for review on the four key

assessments:

Formative Pedagogy

edDispositions

Content Exams

edTPA

S. Parry added periodic assessment with or without CAEP is important and we do a good job of

accessing our programs.

C. Borders on behalf of UTEAC, what happens if we go with or without CAEP, does UTEAC

still exist. The decision will not impact assessment at ISU. We will still look at assessing programs

and improving. AAR is a good start and there are areas that will need adjusted as we are in the

beginning stages. We are committed to making it great. There is a big hole in formative pedagogy

assessment. We will continue to focus on good assessment practices.

P. Schoon stated CTE is embedded in Academic Senate. CTE and its’ subcommittees will still

exist. UTEAC will continue according to the Bylaws. They will still have a function and will

follow the charge from the CTE Executive committee.

S. Jones-Bock indicated that SED faculty voted to put SPA on hold until the state determines

what they are doing.

P. Schoon added the action item to vote will come from the Executive Committee and the vote will

most likely be on March 6, 2018. We are not sure exactly how the action item will look like. It

could be to suspend CAEP or eliminate CAEP.

S. Parry added after the vote, the CTE decision will be sent to the Provost and the President for

their review and possible action.

D. Garrahy summarized the questions and responses over the entire discussion period:

* We have responded to questions regarding SPAs – and the relationship of the SPA to CAEP

* Questions related to Licensure, Licensure is granted by the ISBE and not affiliated with teacher

education accreditation, currently offered by CAEP, Licensure is impacted by Program

Approval through ISBE.

* Grants: Email response sent to M. Winsor’s CTE question regarding awarding of federal

grants without teacher education accreditation.

-No direct link to teacher education accreditation and grant funding. Responses from

Jason Wagoner, Director of Research and Sponsored Programs.

-Dr. John Baur was contacted as well.

-Campus constituents in CeMaST and the COE.

-Licensure and grant funding related to the university’s institutional accreditation

through the HLC.

Fall, 2018: o Program Coordinators and the CTE will need to be available throughout the fall

semester in preparation for Spring 2019 site visit

Discussion on how ISU will use data from CAEP Self Study Report (SSR) to inform

change within in teacher education at the university and programmatic level

CAEP Site team must provide feedback to the EPP 5 months prior to visit

EPP has 60 days after receipt of formative feedback to submit addendum

Spring 2019 o All Program Coordinators and members of the CTE will need to be available for CAEP site

visit in spring 2019

Site Team Arrives on Saturday April 6th, 2019–Departs Tuesday April 9th, 2019

o Format from colleagues with recent CAEP site visits:

Interviews of faculty, staff, school partners, school district visit

Meetings with the President, Provost, Dean COE, University Deans with

teacher education programs, Office of Equal Opportunity, Ethics and Access,

VP for Enrollment Management, Marketing and Communications

Faculty and staff involved in edTPA, Dispositions Assessment, Student teaching

evaluations;

Faculty and Staff to discuss monitoring Candidate Progress from Admission to

Program Completion

Faculty and staff responsible for annual reports and SPA reports

Academic Advisors, Student Teachers, Cooperating Teachers, University

Supervisors. Early Clinical teacher candidates

Clinical Placement Coordinators – including K-12/Secondary faculty who

secure their own placements, Professional Development School Personnel and

PDS Coordinators

L. Sutton has a concern and thinks about the politics of not being accredited. Removing the badge

of distinction allows avenues for alternative academics within higher education. He forecasts a lot

of work that would need to be done. It is a Neo-liberal attack on higher education.

L. Sutton indicated ISBE dysfunction based on L. Haeffle and feels there would be a domino effect

if we do not go with CAEP and National Accreditation.

P. Schoon stated there will be a vote at the next CTE meeting.



A. Chair

√ P. Schoon is asking the CTE members and guests who will volunteer for CAEP work if we

continue and is requesting the names be recorded.

Volunteers:

1. Appel, Kelli

2. Derden, Julie

3. Haling, Linda

4. Jones-Bock, Stacey

5. Meyer, Allison

6. Osoria, Sandra

7. Otto, Stacey

8. Sutton, Len (Len is volunteering to draft faculty from EAF)

9. Williams, Skip

D. Garrahy added that it would be mandatory for any program coordinator to assist with

CAEP.

P. Schoon indicated the conversation will lead to a vote. If we continue with CAEP, there

will be a low level of tolerance for submitting items late, not responding, and not participating

in the CAEP process. With P. Schoon leaving in June and K. Laudner acting as interim, the

directives will remain the same.

√ D. Garrahy gave the survey description that was sent out yesterday:

Moving forward with CAEP requirements while CTE discussion continued on 1/30,

2/6, and 2/20:

o ISU Educator Preparation Program Faculty and Supervisor

Qualifications Survey Sent out to Program Coordinators and the Professional Education Sequence lead

faculty this week

All colleagues teaching and/or supervising your teacher candidates need to

complete the survey by March 30th

CAEP asks about the P-12 teaching or administrative experiences a faculty

member has had.

Supervision of student teachers does not fall within this question, as it is

a university assignment/course load.

P-12 relates, in this context relates to your teaching (e.g. K, Middle

School High School teacher) or administrative (e.g. Principal, Supt. etc.)

responsibilities within the last 5 years

VII. Adjournment


Second: S. Parry




Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, J. Battisto, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, M. Ely,

S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, L. Haling, P. Hash, S. Jones-Bock, M. Lartz, C. Lawton, A. Meyer,

M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, M. Winsor,

C. Zimmerman

Absent: K. Janos, K. Mountjoy, J. Regnier, S. Williams

Guests: H. Goldsmith, T. Hinkel, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, M. Monts, E. Palmer, M. Parker, C. Rutherford,

J. Watson



I. Approval of Minutes from February 20, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from February 20, 2018:


Second: S. Parry



A. Curriculum Committee: S. Parry reported there are two proposals; one for ELED and one for

DOSE. Both proposals require a vote.

1. Elementary Education: Change in Requirements for the Major

● Adding BIO 101

● Removing MAT 150

● Adding Macro 101 and Micro 102 ECON

● Adding proficiency to MAT 119 in the required hours section

● Wording change to reflect TCH 318 or TCH 248 are required for each elective track

● Changes are being made to classes

Motion

Motion to approve the proposal for revisions in the Elementary Education Major: S. Parry

Second: S. Otto

Proposal for revision changes to Elementary Education Major approved unanimously.

2. Director of Special Education (DOSE) Post Master’s Certificate: Change in Requirements

● Revising titles to reflect the changing environment

● Adding EAF 434: Supervision for Learning Environments

● Four credits removed from DOSE

M. Noraian asked what type of certificate.

The response was a Post-Master’s Certificate for Special Education Administration

● Removing SED 593.03: Assistive Technology Applications in Special Education

● Removing SED 540 Seminar in Contemporary Topics in Special Education

● Revising the title SED 517 to represent finance content of the Directorship that is already in

the course syllabus

Motion

Motion to approve the proposal to change requirements for Post Master’s Certificate: S. Parry

Second: S. French

Proposal for change in requirements for Post Master’s Certificate approved unanimously.

B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported the committee recently met with Design Streak

and will bring the three chosen logos in April to CTE.

Students are submitting their statement and lesson plan for the scholarship award. They are due at the end

of spring break. There have been two notices sent to programs for submissions and the programs can now

follow up for evaluating submissions.





1. Secondary Programs Update: D. Garrahy indicated the Executive Board has been updated

giving the option of adding a new SED course to the Professional Ed Sequence. This could start

as early as spring 2019. Secondary programs need to identify the Professional Ed Sequence

course to D. Garrahy by April 20, 2018. Programs must submit a curricular change and will

have to identify where the ITPS Standards and clinical hours, if any, will be infused.

D. Garrahy distributed a hand-out on the need for Secondary and K-12 Program candidates needing

a Special Education course concerning the Exceptional Learner. D. Garrahy will send out

information to programs tomorrow morning.

Discussion:

M. Winsor asked if Math is happy with what they are doing, can they continue.

D. Garrahy responded that they could continue with the course they have and send it to her in

writing.

M. Noraian further explained in more detail that the changes would allow programs to select

courses from the Professional Ed Sequence.

C. Borders asked if a broad scope of topics for the new SED Exceptional Learner course could be

outlined.

S. Jones-Bock responded that an outline could be done.

D. Garrahy added that the due date can be changed, but it would be unfair to have TCH and EAF wait

until the fall.

P. Schoon stated that we have to know this semester and to let Stacey know if you are changing or

remaining with what is in place.

P. Hash asked what would need to be provided to opt out of the course.

S. Jones-Bock responded the ITPS Standards and clinical hours must be assumed somewhere else and

be provided in the curricular changes.

L. Sutton asked that the overall impact and ramification of this change and how it will impact TCH and

EAF be taken into consideration. As a chair, he has to be an advocate of and protective of

his faculty and feels this would have a major impact on EAF. He requests that Secondary Education

let EAF know as soon as possible. He fears the spirit of cooperation may be missing.

D. Garrahy indicated that secondary programs requested syllabi from EAF and syllabi were never

provided.

M. Noraian stated the Professional Education Sequence is a menu of 11 credit hours that programs will

choose from: TCH, EAF or SED. Currently, they take TCH 212, 216, and 219 and EAF but this

proposal adds in an SED course and programs will identify what courses will best serve their

students.

L. Sutton and S. Otto reminded CTE that EAF asked for a second meeting hoping to share data and

they never received a response to their requests.

T. Hinkel mentioned that incoming teachers to Illinois have to prove a course in SED. Our secondary

programs do not have that in their courses. If a student is evaluated, this could be a potential problem.

IV. Discussion Items: None

V. Action Items

1. CAEP: P. Schoon asked S. Parry to read the motion.

Motion:

That Illinois State University request a delay of 2 years for our CAEP site visit. S. Parry

Second: S. Otto

Discussion

S. French asked if we would still be part of CAEP?

D. Garrahy responded that we will still be accredited.

S. Otto asked if the answer is “no” for the extension, do we still move forward?

D. Garrahy responded that the self-study would be suspended but must be continued until the request is

granted. The Executive Committee would decide if we move forward.

L. Sutton added that the work load is heavy and suggested empowering people and forming a succession

plan.

L. Haling indicated that there has been discussion with CAEP regarding the process. It goes to two

committees and a letter from ISBE needs to be provided.

D. Garrahy indicated it is disappointing because the state has not signed on to CAEP.

D. Garrahy stated the self-study documentation is due July 11, 2018.

D. Garrahy stated the CAEP committees that review our request will meet April 27th – 30th. We would

be notified of a decision during that time frame.

J. Derden asked what if the state does not provide a letter?

P. Schoon stated ISU would still submit and indicate the dates the letter was requested from the state.

MEMBER VOTE

Derden, Julie YES

Gorski, Jean YES

Arnett-Hartwick, Sally YES

Ely, Mindy YES

French, Sarah YES

Hash, Phillip YES

Lartz, Maribeth YES

Meyer, Allison YES

Osorio, Sandra NO

Otto, Stacy YES

Winsor, Matthew YES

Zimmerman, Corinne YES

Anderlik, John YES

Battisto, Jarod YES

Lawton, Carrie YES

Borders, Christy YES

Davis, Tamra YES

Garrahy, Deborah YES

Noraian, Monica YES

Parry, Sally YES

Rosenthal, Jon YES

Schoon, Perry ABSTAIN

Motion for ISU to request an extension from CAEP to delay two years from site visit was approved.


A. Chair: None

B. Vice-Chair: None

C. Members:

√ E. Palmer shared that we are hosting the edTPA National Conference May 4, 2018 at the ISU

Alumni Center. Participants from five states will be in attendance. E. Palmer encourages everyone

to attend.

The cost is $45.00 and includes lunch. A flyer will be posted and there are less than 100 seats

still available.

VII. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: P. Schoon

Second: S. Parry




Tuesday, March 20th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Studio TeAch, Room 307/DeGarmo Hall, Room 551

Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, J. Battisto, C. Borders, T. Davis, M. Ely,

S. French, D. Garrahy, L. Haling, P. Hash, K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, M. Lartz, C. Lawton, M. Noraian,

S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier, J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, L. Sutton, S. Williams, M. Winsor

Absent: J. Derden, J. Gorski, A. Meyer, K. Mountjoy, J. Regnier, C. Zimmerman

Guests: B. Jacobsen, W. Matejka

Meeting started at 3:00 in Studio TeAch

I. Information Items: Studio TeAch

The CTE meeting began in Studio TeAch.

D. Garrahy indicated Studio TeAch is open to all teacher candidates across campus. She asked that

members take the information back to their respective programs.

W. Matejka, Instructional Technology Manager Coordinator, shared how Studio TeAch came about. In

2008, he was the technology coordinator for Metcalf. In 2009, Dr. Fritson-Coffman, principal at Metcalf,

and W. Matejka reimagined the multi-purpose/shop space to create a place for future students. It was

initially going to be called the Imaginerium and wanted to partnership with the College of Education.

Stanford has an Imaginerium discovery museum we were unable to use the name. Studio TeAch,

commonly known as The Studio, is located on the 3rd floor of DeGarmo and is open for all students at

Illinois State, not just teacher education candidates. Studio TeAch is an open lab space with STEM

engineered technologies available for students to use:

3-D Printers

Robots to control iPads

Circuits

Mindstorms

Multi Displays

Mobile Whiteboards/VIA wireless projector, up to 4 screens at a time

iPads/laptops can be checked out

Nintendo switch

Studio TeAch is also a social space with modular, mobile furniture. The chairs move up and down. There

are print stations where students/staff can print to in the hallway. There is also a quiet zone area. Staff

tend not to reserve this portion of Studio TeAch. There is a partition that divides Studio TeAch and the

other 1/3 is the space that is reserved for faculty/staff.

Studio TeAch is constantly staffed by one or two people at all times. W. Matejka indicated if they do not

have something to please let them know what it is and they will try to obtain the requested item.

P. Schoon added that Studio TeAch has a standard set-up and is reset each day. W. Matejka stated they

have three areas of technology: Studio TeAch, Area 21, and DEG 52. There is technology staff in two of

the three areas. You can reserve a room on the edtech site at the link below:

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/edtech/studioteach/

Thanked W. Matejka for the tour and overview of Studio TeAch. Resumed meeting in DEG 551.


II. Approval of Minutes from March 6, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from March 6, 2018:


Second: S. Parry

D. Garrahy made two amendments to minutes:

Under:


1. Secondary Programs Update: Should read:

D. Garrahy indicated the Executive Board had been updated regarding the option of adding a new SED

course to the Professional Ed Sequence. This could start as early as spring 2019. Secondary programs

will need to identify the Professional Ed Sequence course they wish to add/delete by April 20, 2018.

Under Discussion:

D. Garrahy added that the due date of April 20th can be changed, but it would be unfair to have TCH and

EAF wait until the fall semester to find out Secondary/K-12 Program decisions regarding the Professional

Ed Sequence.

Amended minutes unanimously approved with no abstentions.



B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported the committee has received 18 student

submissions to review for the scholarship award.



https://education.illinoisstate.edu/edtech/studioteach/


IV. Discussion Items: None



A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members:

√ D. Garrahy clarified from March 6, 2018 CTE meeting: SED course will first be offered and

in the catalogue fall 2019. It will be piloted in spring 2019.

C. Chair:

√ P. Schoon informed members of the status on postponement of Provost written letter. The

packet CAEP requested does not mean it will be approved. Waiting on ISBE reply. CAEP

will review at onsite visit 4/27-4/20/18 and we will be notified by April 30th.

VII. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: S. Parry





Tuesday, April 3rd, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, J. Battisto, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, M. Ely,

S. French, D. Garrahy, L. Haling, P. Hash, K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, M. Lartz, C. Lawton, A. Meyer,

K. Mountjoy, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, S. Williams

Absent: J. Gorski, J. Rosenthal, L. Sutton, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Guests: K. Berg, L. Clayton, D. Dressler, H. Goldsmith, T. Hinkel, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, M. McDaniels, M.

Monts, H. Olsen, A. Raver, A. Shekara

Meeting started at 3:00 in Studio TeAch

I. Information Items: Design Streak: Student Presentation on CTE Logo

M. Noraian welcomed students from Design Streak. A couple years ago, the perspective was shared by

Student Interests Committee with Design Streak for a CTE logo. CTE will hear four presentations for the

CTE logo. Members are to rank and give rationale on the logos. This semester we will vote and adopt a

logo to represent what we do at CTE. M. Noraian introduced Archana Shekara, Associate Professor of

School of Art. She is the creative and art Director of Design Streak.

A. Shekara indicated that she took over teaching the course for Julie Johnson and she is in her 4th year.

She has been at ISU 9 years. Design Streak consists of 110 students, mostly seniors. Design Streak is

celebrating their 40th anniversary. A. Shekara encouraged members to spread the work about Design

Streak. Currently, they are making t-shirts for National Center for Urban Education. They are doing the

entire branding for the Art Station and designing laundry detergent design for YWCA, which will be

carried by 5-6 local grocery stores. This semester they are creating invitations/brochures for Habitat for

Humanity.

1. Design Streak Presentation #1: M. McDaniels

Symbol for the logo is a light bulb:

Education is one of the most important aspects in life and plays a vital role in shaping tomorrow’s

leaders. Education sparks new ideas and can spread light to anyone’s future. Light bulbs are a source

of energy which starts at the core and works its way through its structure to create a burst of light that

brightens a dark room, and this represents teaching. Education is the base, our Teachers act as the

filament to help light the path for students’ futures, and the Council is represented as the glass bulb,

which acts as a protective layer.

The light bulb is made using “CTE” letterforms. The yellow color for the “T” stands for happiness,

positivity and intellect. The color yellow helps activate the memory, encourage communication,

enhance vision and build confidence, which are some of the roles teachers take on. The color green-

blue represents growth and empowerment one attains because of education. This logo visually depicts

the role of CTE as the guardian of the future education. I believe this logo reflects what CTE stands

for and helps lead the way for the future of education.

2. Design Streak Presentation #2: L. Clayton

Symbol for the logo is books facing outward.

Books symbolize knowledge, and five books are arranged in a circular pattern, they are open and

facing outward to represent the mission of Illinois State University – gladly we learn and teach.

Sharing, spreading and passing knowledge to the world is the goal of all educators. Each book

represents a different responsibility of CTE. Teal is for regulation because teal signifies wholeness

and sophistication. The warm color orange represents advocacy. Yellow is radiant and represents

optimism in planning for the future. Reporting is pink because pink is a color of tenderness and caring.

Purple is the color for ambition and signifies the responsibility of leadership. All of the colors are

bright and inviting to show that the “Council for Teacher Education” is an important and welcoming

group in the College and University.

3. Design Streak Presentation #3: D. Dressler

Symbol for the logo is five arrows resembled pages in a book. The logo consists of five arrows that represent five primary areas of responsibilities of the Council for

Teacher Education; Leadership, Liaison/Advocacy, Planning/Development, Regulation, and

Reporting. Arrows were choisen to represent these five primary areas since they indicate change and

direction. These five arrows pointing to the right signifies the new future and progress. The arrows

pointing to the right signifies the new future and progress. The arrows also suggest the action of

turning each page in a book.

The reference to books was inspired by the ISU logo and mission – gladly we learn

and teach, the College of Education, teachers, students, and the scholarly foundation of the Council

for Teacher Education. The turning of pages further symbolizes progress, change, anhd looking

towards the future. The color used is Illinois State University’s red. The color red is associated with

strength, power, and passion and the Council is strong in serving the College of Education and the

University and has the power to bring positive change and diverse learning experiences to its faculty

and students.

4. Design Streak Presentation #4: K. Berg

Symbol for the logo is five columns. Council for Teacher Education provides five columns that support the functions and responsibilities of

Leadership, Liaison/Advocacy, Planning/Development, Regulation, and Reporting. These five columns

are weaved together to make a new pattern that supports each another to create a stable structure.

The two lines in each column represent teachers and students as pillars; these lines then come

together to create a square. The square is used as a metaphor for a book, which related back to

education. The stability of the square suggests safety and trustworthiness. The five colors used

symbolize the various responsibilities of the council. In the middle of the square, the purple lines

combine the calmness of blue and the passionate energy of red. The purple and red lines also

combine together to create the letter “T” for teachers. The bottom blue lines symbolize grounding

and trust. The red on top represents leadership, passion, and strength. On the left, yellow vertical

lines represent positivity and hope. Lastly, the green vertical lines on the right represent growth and

development. Overall, the stabilized structure of the five columns represents the unity of Council for

Teacher Education.

A. Shekara gave an overview of how the design process works. They all had to read the CTE bylaws. All

students do a design. The group critiques and they present concepts. They are told to leave their egos out

the door and they choose design (s). The entire studio celebrates. A. Shekara had the four presentations

in a binded folder. There was a large colored image and small black and white image with the

descriptions of each logo on the back. They present it in black and white to show what is would look like

if a department was only using one ink. They also print it small enough to show what the logo would look

like on a business card. Logo/design must be able to print on any material.

D. Garrahy commented, “WOW”! D. Garrahy also thanked the other 4-5 students that were present to

support the presenters. D. Garrahy added she was very impressed and needed that today. D. Garrahy has

faith and hope with students like you.

B. Jacobsen really liked the second and third presentations. The books logo was so bright and the coming

together in a circle. The arrows show motion.

J. Derden added that it is a privilege to see Art Education creativity and would love to see that creativity

instilled in our students. J. Derden applauds Design Streak and students for collaborating and coming up

with the CTE logo.

P. Schoon echoes D. Garrahy’s comment. P. Schoon added it was fantastic with the rationale for visual

elements. He eluded indicating a great deal of work and passion went into designing the logos.

M. Noraian stated she was blown away by the logos. All four design logos are vastly different. A

feedback sheet was distributed to members to rank and complete.

Meeting resumed in DEG 551.


II. Approval of Minutes from March 20, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from March 20, 2018:


Second: S. Parry

Minutes approved with one abstention.



B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported the committee has been reviewing the essays for

the scholarship award.



E. UTEAC: E. Palmer reported that the committee met and D. Barker presented the secondary

mathematics version of edDispositions, which was approved by the committee.

The committee also examined the 6 different formative pedagogy assessments currently being used in the

programs and spent time identifying the constructs in each one.

IV. Information Item #2: CAEP Update

A. Site Visit Extension Paperwork Submission: D. Garrahy indicated on 3/22/18, site visit

extension paperwork was submitted requesting our 2 year extension. Several items were in the

University rationale:

Transition and Interim status of leaders in the COE: Dean, Associate Dean, Director of

TCH, Director of Enrollment and Transition Services, Director of Communications,

and the Superintendent of our Laboratory Schools

Transition and Interim status of Dean in Arts and Sciences; nine secondary education

programs are

housed in the CAS

ISBE – no signed state partnership agreement between ISBE & CAEP

Lack of COGNOS availability for teacher education at this time: COGNOS is the business

computer system that generates data reports for ISU. Currently, teacher education data is

pulled

manually.

Potential lack of a state budget for 2019

ISBE letter of support: ISBE wrote a letter of support for ISU’s two year extension request

D. Garrahy stated that CAEP will make their decision on our request between 4/27-4/30/18 and then

notify ISU.

P. Schoon added the letter had the Provosts’ signature.

B. EPP Key Assessments: Data Update Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 Data Submissions

D. Garrahy indicated there are issues with the Key Assessment Data for fall 2017 and spring 2018.

There are four key assessments and some programmatic issues. She thanked programs that have

submitted their survey data, paperwork, and reports on time.

1) AAR is the CTE approved process and requires programs to analyze their data.

What happens if programs do not get their data turned in on time? Is this acceptable? Who

will contact the programs not submitting reports on time?

2) CAEP:

a) Four Key Assessment for ISU:

o Content Test

o edTPA

Receiving the above data is always timely as it comes from the State

o Formative Pedagogy

o edDispositions

Fall 2017 data audit revealed gaps in submissions by faculty

It has taken 150 staff hours over the last few weeks to identify and rectify where the

problems are located and contact department (s)

11 programs were cleared; meaning all data accounted for fall 2017

11 programs are almost cleared for fall 2017

4 programs have large amount of data missing

ISU’s Self-Study Report is due July 11th, 2018 if CAEP does not approve our request

for a two year extension. The data listed above will be included in this Self-Study

Report

Data submissions for Formative Pedagogy and edDispositions for spring, 2018 must be

completed and submitted in LiveText by May 11th, 2018.

o May 11th provides D. Garrahy the ability to follow up with programs with

missing data, prior to faculty leaving for the summer.

o D. Garrahy also mentioned that faculty are off contract beginning May

15th

b) CAEP Data Collection

Several data pieces have been collected via Formstack, most recently, the “Faculty

Qualifications Table for EPP – Based Clinical Educators:

o Survey was sent out on 2/19/18

o Survey Completion was due on 3/30/18

o Survey took about 10 minutes to complete

o As of 3/30/18 there were:

217 submissions

95 faculty did not complete the survey by deadline

D. Garrahy sent emails to program coordinators on 3/30/18 and one on

3/31/18 notifying coordinators of missing faculty

The survey was reopened on 4/2/18 for those who did not complete by

deadline

Submissions should be totaled 312

o Moving forward, similar surveys will only be open for 2 weeks based on vey

Research on survey data

S. Parry asked if any faculty did not submit in her college to send to S. Parry, copy their Associate

Dean’s and department Chairs to force the issue. D. Garrahy appreciates S. Parry requesting this as

D. Garrahy spent two hours on Friday and one hour on Saturday cross-checking submissions and

contacting the Program Coordinators with missing faculty data.

o Approving Pre-STT Clinical Experiences - (aka Blue Docs)

All Pre-STT Clinical Experiences for spring 2018 must be

approved/completed by faculty no later than

5/11/18, not only for our candidates’ documentation of their 100 required

clinical hours, but this data will be included in our CAEP Self-Study Report.

3) Data Irregularities for fall 2017:

From the audit of assignments graded in LiveText:

o Fall 2017 assessments not completed. Students submitted but faculty did not

assess in LiveText

o Instructor highlighted feedback and copied and pasted to other students.

For instance, using the student’s name in the feedback statement, cut and

pasting for the remaining students on the roster.

D. Garrahy will suggest the CTE establish standing dates for key assessments for LiveText for

AAR/CAEP, similar to those required for candidates with Student Teaching requirements (July 15th

and December 15th). D. Garrahy expressed sincere thanks for those programs consistently meeting

deadlines.

S. Otto asked if it could be worked in the system that they get notified when faculty submits. She had

a faculty member submit, but did not email her to let her know.

D. Garrahy will look into it. When survey goes out and is completed, D. Garrahy and E. Palmer

receive a copy of it.

S. Otto asked about faculty on FMLA and Sabbatical, or an adjunct who is no longer around.

P. Schoon responded that if they are on FMLA, we leave them alone.

If they are on sabbatical, they are still being paid by the University so it is not unfair for us to ask them

to complete. Sabbaticals are not governed mandated requirements.

C. Borders indicated that some surveys may be needed every semester. If you have an odd

situation, please let D. Garrahy know. We know we will have gaps in some data due to these

instances and we will let CAEP know where those holes are.

V. Discussion Items: None

VI. Action Items: None

VII. Announcements and Last Comments

A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members:

√ C. Borders and D. Garrahy will attend a hearing on Tuesday, 4/10/18 at 8:00 on HB 4956. They

were made aware of this yesterday. C. Borders distributed a hand-out with the full description of

HB 4956. Beginning with the 2019-2020 academic year, every public university in the state of

Illinois that offers an educator preparation program must offer a 3-year degree completion

program.

Our response is NO.

Jonathan Lackland provided the information to the Provost. The Provost contacted the Dean and

D. Garrahy. D. Garrahy provided a list of why this would be problematic and with a hearty no,

we do not support this House Bill. Currently, there are 8 HB and 2 SB that are being pushed

through in the next few weeks. P. Schoon presented an article from the Chronicle, Title:

Students are demanding faster degrees and colleges are responding. The public and students are

probably going to be in favor of this HB. Due to teacher shortage, parents and students are

wanting this. Springfield is functioning very differently than in the past. Many of the bills have

bi-partisan sponsorship.

T. Hinkel added ISBE is not supportive of HB 4956. Every program would need to apply to ISBE

as a new program.

D. Garrahy will send HB4956 to members.

L. Haling asked if any data on teacher shortage other than a few years ago?

C. Borders indicated that E. Maloney was in the committee meeting and no asked in higher

education.

S. Otto added that admissions was suspended while going through review.

VII. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned 4:35: P. Schoon



Tuesday, April 17th, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: S. Arnett-Hartwick, J. Battisto, T. Davis, M. Ely, S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski,

L. Haling, P. Hash, K. Janos, M. Lartz, C. Lawton, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Otto, S. Parry, J. Regnier,

P. Schoon, S. Semonis, L. Sutton, S. Williams, M. Winsor

Absent: J. Anderlik, C. Borders, J. Derden, S. Jones-Bock, K. Mountjoy, S. Osorio, J. Rosenthal,

C. Zimmerman

Guests: B. Hatt, T. Hinkel, P. Hoff, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, M. Monts, E. Palmer, M. Parker,

C. Rutherford, D. Renn, approximately 30 students.


Roll Call: Conducted by S. Conner.

I. Approval of Minutes from April 3, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from April 3, 2018:


Second: S. Parry

Minutes approved with one abstention.



B. Student Interests Committee: M. Noraian reported the committee is reviewing round two of the

essay submissions. Also, the presentation of the logo designs by Design Streak will be shown later in the

meeting.



E. UTEAC: E. Palmer reported the committee is continuing conversation regarding formative pedagogy.

They are looking at program assessments and determining what is common. In the future, they will look

at Danielson commonalities across the programs.

III. Information Items:

1. SEPLB: T. Hinkel was recognized by P. Schoon. A hand-out was distributed on State Educator

Preparation and Licensure Board. SEPBL is a licensure specific Board within the Illinois State Board of

Education (ISBE) which reviews educator programs and licensure items. They meet once a month.

Common SEPBL Tasks:

Review and approve program changes and new programs

Review and approve raw cut scores for new content tests

Review annual reports for programs

Hears Professional Educator License revocation and lapsed appeals

Note of Interest: SEPBL makes recommendations and votes on programs, scores and other items. The

State Board of Education may approve their vote or overrule them. In the past, the State Board of

Education approved SEPBL recommendations, however, that isn’t the case anymore. Membership is

K-12 and higher education. Nancy Latham is a board member.

Current updates of interest

New content tests

o Elementary Education, Middle Level, Early Childhood, Agriculture, English,

Reading Specialist, School Psychologist, Social Sciences, Technology,

Superintendent

S. Parry asked if English is the Language Arts Test?

T. Hinkel indicated that the English test is the Language Arts Test.

o New test score results

ELED use to have a passage rate of over 90%. Currently, it is 51% for the state and

60% for ISU.

L. Haling added they use to have 100% pass rate for the Reading Specialist test. Since

the test has been changed, they had a teacher candidate fail it.

The content tests changes cannot be automatically uploaded, so T. Hinkel pays attention

to the pass/fail rates.

o Subsequent SEPLB debate

SEPBL took the cut scores and recommendations by Pearson to lower the new cut

scores.

SEPLB was overruled by Higher Board of Education.

American Continental – for profit institution

o Initial proposal to operate in Illinois (new institution recognition); in October 2017 the

request was denied by SEPLB

o Subsequent Teacher Leader proposal – December 2017, March 2018 and April 2018.

The proposal kept being tabled due to lack of new information. SEPLB voted down but

Higher Board of Education indicated it was an adequate program proposal.

T. Hinkel added their program is pushing online collaboration. Since they do not

operate in Illinois, much of the collaboration will be with professor’s online and not

always with trained cooperating teachers of campus supervisors via a typical clinical

setting. SEPLB viewed it as an adult learners programs vs. a teacher leader.

L. Sutton asked when did we become aware about American Continental and what is

the time span to completion for students.

T. Hinkel responded approximately two years and tuition is different for each

institution.

Ongoing Information

Secondary program changes – current estimated time line

o October 1, 2020 – no longer admit to old program

o October 1, 2024 – all new program effective and old programs must be completed

o October 1, 2025 – last date for all candidates must apply for old 6-12 endorsement

after this date, they can only apply for 9-12 under the new rules

o SPA alignment must be shown

State student teaching evaluation form

o No further movement at this time

2. HB4956 Update: P. Schoon and D. Garrahy indicated there was no new information.

IV. Action Items:

1. Design Streak: M. Noraian indicated at the last CTE meeting that Design Streak students

presented logos to represent CTE. The logos were voted on and Options 1 and 2 received the

most votes: Light Bulb concept and Open Book concept. The top two are being brought

forward to CTE by the committee. Ballots were distributed and results will be shared at the

next meeting.

P. Schoon reminded the members that only voting members of CTE can vote.

V. Discussion Items:

L. Sutton moved to amend the agenda for a discussion item regarding the professional education

sequence for secondary programs.

P. Schoon asked for any objections: None

Second: S. Otto

L. Sutton prefaced the discussion by indicating it is disappointing that we do not get in front of the issue

and inform our colleagues of the issues that would have repercussions to his department, faculty, and

students. It concerns him that EAF only has one voting member on the CTE and does not feel that

is equitable. This is a big decision that is on the table and he needs to advocate for his department.

L. Sutton thinks there is a human component that has been missed. This affects students and tenure line

positions. We need to determine what is best for our students. If we move curriculum, this means moving

faculty.

S. Parry stated that CAS has 11 teacher education programs and the CTE only has three voting

representatives from her college so she understands his concern. S. Parry added that depending on the

program, a student can still take the course – required or not required. S. Parry reiterated the 124 credit

hour constraints programs must follow. EAF is a course proposed for the new IDEAS (U.S. Diversity)

requirements.

L. Sutton met with three colleagues from English and there was a great discussion about the timeline and

how long the change would have to be in effect. L. Sutton finds himself in a position without answers to

the questions his faculty are asking. If a department wants to change again after the EAF decision is made,

how long would it take to reverse the change?

S. Parry talked about the catalogue change timeline. It needs to come from the department, go through

the Department Curriculum Committee, the program Chair/School Director, the College Curriculum

Committee, the College Dean, and CTE before it goes to the University Curriculum Committee. It could

take a year to 18 months. This is the reason a vote was needed before the end of the semester. The student

may move up to a newer catalogue.

P. Schoon added the catalogue change is approved by the college it resides in.

S. Otto stated this is a change to the professional education sequence. How does this impact the timeline?

S. Parry reiterated it is the same process. The concern will be if the deleted course requirements are met

(i.e. IPTS, clinicals, etc.)

S. Otto asked how many programs currently deviate.

S. Parry responded each department will need to make a decision about electives (approved by the college

of the program).

A student spoke as an advocate for keeping EAF.

T. Hinkel stated that this change stems from the state’s current licensure requirements for secondary

programs: Special Education, Reading Methods, and ESL/Bi-lingual.

SED is a current license requirement. The urgency is that programs are now needing to reapply.

T. Hinkel indicated it was the state code.

S. Otto feels just because the state is telling us programs need some SED does not mean teacher education

programs should give up doing the work (with teacher ed students) we know needs doing (through EAF).

B. Hatt added this is pitting Foundations courses against SED courses represents a false dichotomy. We

know we need both, so covering one instead of the other does nothing to advance the knowledge students

require.

Student Advocate for EAF: Students are against the dismantling of EAF.

P. Schoon reminded that students, faculty, and staff that are not CTE members must be recognized by the

Chair of CTE.

L. Sutton stated that EAF is what students need and EAF is always open for business. Secondary

programs need to come see EAF on the 3rd floor and they will show them what they are doing that is best

for the students.

Student Advocate for EAF: Why are you getting rid of this program? Are you disregarding why the

program was created?

Student Advocate for EAF: English student indicating they were not consulted about replacing EAF with

SED.

L. Sutton: To be fair to ENG, they will be voting later in the week, so this may or may not be accurate.

Student Advocate for EAF: ECE student and in the four years she has been at ISU, only two

classes/professors made her feel included and represented. Why take away one class that makes them feel

important?

J. Regnier: History major – they were not made aware of the change.

Student Advocate for EAF: GA for Psychology stated that students are not aware about race and

equity. Race needs to be addressed and integrated. If students are unaware, this is problematic. In EAF

she found her mentors and assistance.

Student Advocate for EAF: ENG Ed – EAF teaches students what to say; they advocate for diversity.

L. Haling: This discussion is only for secondary programs, all other programs (ECE, ELED, ML) still

have EAF 228.

Student Advocate for EAF: Art Ed. - First year misrepresented in learning white side perspective – feel

affirmed. Systematic issue at ISU.

Student Advocate for EAF: Freshman – the decision is up to you all to remove the EAF class. ISU will

plummet. She is already transferring due to professors, RAs, and learning. If you remove EAF, students

of color will transfer or not come to ISU and current students will transfer.

D. Garrahy: The decision is a program decision and not a CTE decision for clarification.

M. Noraian: Thanks to the students and it is very important to hear voices from the students, faculty, and

alumni. The programs are attempting to respond to all demands and she appreciates the perspectives.

Programs are having to make hard decisions.

D. Garrahy: Reiterated that no one sitting at the table would be voting, it is the individual secondary

programs that will be making the decision on the professional education sequence.

Student Advocate for EAF: You have an indirect vote. You all are actively listening. You have a voice

and you need to let individual departments know what the wants and demands are from the students. It’s

a ripple effect; slippery slope. With that seat, you have a responsibility.

Student Advocate for EAF: We are in this room because power is in this room.

Student Advocate for EAF: Science TED - EAF 228 was the first education course he took. It was an

important class, maybe the most important. It taught him about his responsibility as a white teacher.

Inequality exists to this day

Student Advocate for EAF: Not an education major, took EAF 228 as an elective. Graduate student and

had to become a teacher when she was at Regional Alternative School. Dichotomy between SED and

diversity. Only course that teaches the critical perspectives for teachers is EAF. This discussion is stupid.

M. Noraian: It is a program choice. Talk to your program faculty/coordinators.

Student Advocate for EAF: For majors who drop EAF, is there another course or information about

diversity that is included within the program?

Student Advocate for EAF: Feels underrepresented as a student of color. Removing EAF would be a step

backwards.

P. Schoon: Applauds all of you for your courage to come, represent and advocate for EAF. Thanks to

you all for coming and bringing a voice.

VI. Action Items: None


A. Vice-Chair: None

B. Members: None

VIII. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: L. Haling

Second: S. Parry




Tuesday, May 1st, 2018 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Minutes

Members Present: J. Anderlik, S. Arnett-Hartwick, A. Bates, C. Borders, T. Davis, J. Derden, M. Ely,

S. French, D. Garrahy, J. Gorski, P. Hash, M. Lartz, A. Meyer, M. Noraian, S. Osorio, S. Otto, S. Parry,

J. Rosenthal, P. Schoon, S. Semonis, S. Williams, M. Winsor, C. Zimmerman

Absent: J. Battisto, K. Janos, S. Jones-Bock, C. Lawton, K. Mountjoy, J. Regnier, L. Sutton

Guests: H. Goldsmith, B. Jacobsen, D. Kilgore, K. Laudner, M. Monts, H, Olsen, E. Palmer,

C. Rutherford


Roll Call: Conducted by T. Davis

I. Approval of Minutes from April 17, 2018: Motion to approve the minutes from April 17, 2018:


Second: S. Parry

Minutes approved with two abstentions.



B. Student Interests Committee: The committee met and the Student Interests committee will have a

table at Festival ISU. They also discussed ways to let others know about CTE and explain the structure.

The student awards are complete.



E. UTEAC: P. Hash reported the committee met and working on revisions for AAR process. Update

will be given in fall. They discussed formative pedagogy and they fit into Danielson. They may have all

programs assess in Domain 1.

III. Information Items:

1. edTPA: E. Palmer showed a Power Point presentation on edTPA results:

Fall – 161

Mean = 46.2

Pass Rate = 91.9

Condition Codes = 4

Failure = 9

Final Pass Rate = 97.9%

Range 28-63

Spring – So far 352

Mean = 46.9

Pass Rate = 96.6

Condition Codes = 4

Failure = 9

Final Pass Rate = TBD

Range 26-73

We received more Financial Aid for edTPA = $71,700

There were 337 vouchers based on unmet financial needs

May 10 is the last day to submit for spring graduation. E. Palmer is helping department facilitate for re-

takes.

In Fall 19, the cut score is 39, initial estimate is 80% with 20 re-takes. In Fall 20, cut score is 41 with

96% estimate and 12 re-takes. On May 14th and 15th edTPA Summits were held to discuss

patterns/trends.

2. CAEP: D. Garrahy indicated that there has been no response from CAEP about our request for an

extension. D. Garrahy reached out to CAEP yesterday and today and they are not able to render a

decision on phone or email.

May 11, 2018, all key assessment data is due in LiveText, including pre-clinical documentation forms.

3. Legislative Updates: A hand-out was distributed. C. Borders stated there were three main bills that

were supposed to be at hearing:

● SB 2693: Institutions of higher learning may not require an applicant to complete the

State Board’s recognized test of basic skills prior to the semester before student

teaching or prior to the semester before starting the final semester of an internship,

effective immediately. Passed in the Senate 57-0. It will move to the House with

amendments. Not scheduled for House committee yet

● HB 4956: Every public university in this State that offers an educator preparation

program must offer to those students enrolled in the educator preparation program a 3-

year degree completion program. Bill passed the House 96-11-2. Sponsor is Sen. Bill

Cunningham. Going to hearing 5/1/18, although we have received word that the Senator

might not call the bill. ISU has prepared both written response submitted last week and oral

testimony if bill is called today. Senate is planning to call for the bill to be killed. We will

have to wait and see.

● HB 5627: Makes changes to provisions concerning the licensure powers of the State Board

of Education, the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board (including adding 2

members), types of licenses (including removing and adding certain endorsements on an

educator license with stipulations), endorsements on professional educator licenses, educator

testing, the minimum requirements for educators trained in other states or countries,

application fees, license renewal, the Alternative Educator Licensure Program for Teachers,

alternative route to superintendent endorsement programs, and the approval of educator

preparation institutions, effective July 1, 2018.

C. Borders suggested members complete witness slips, email and make phone calls to education

committee members and email and make phone calls to your representative and senator. These must be

conducted as individuals, not on behalf of the University, College, or Department, per our Ethics

Officer.

The witness slips are used to be in favor or oppose the bill. They are located on the legislative page.

4. CTE Members: Outgoing/Incoming Members: D. Garrahy indicated the outgoing and incoming

members:

Outgoing Incoming Reappointed

1. A. Meyer 1. M. Ely 1. Phil Hash

2. S. Otto 2. E. Mikulec

3. J. Gorski 3. K. Laudner

4. J. Derden Interim Dean of COE

5. P. Schoon 4. A. Bates

Interim Director of TCH

IV. Action Items: None

V. Discussion Items: None


A. Vice-Chair:

√ S. Parry thanked Dean Schoon for his time as Chair and leadership on the CTE.

B. Members: None

VIII. Adjournment


Second: S. Parry


Illinois State University Council for Teacher Education ... · E. Palmer gave a Power Point...

Documents

Transcript of Illinois State University Council for Teacher Education ... · E. Palmer gave a Power Point...